IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN TUESDAY, THE 14TH JUNE 2011 / 24TH JYAISHTA 1933 WP(C).No. 14693 of 2011(J) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ REJEESH MR, S/O. REVEENDRAN, AGED 33 YEARS, MUPPARATHY HOUSE, ELAMBUZHE DESOM, KARALAM.P.O., THRISSUR. NOW RESIDING AT THE RESIDENCE OF PARVATY, W/O. LATE VISWANATHAN, VELLACKKALHOUSE, PERINGOTTUKARA.P.O., MOOTHEDATHARA DESOM, THANYAM VILLAGE, THRISSUT DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.SHOBY K.FRANCIS RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, CBCID, CRIME BRANCH, KALOOR, ERNAKULAM-18. 2. THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, OFFICE OF THE DY.SP, CBCID,CRIME BRANCH,THRISSUR.PIN- 680 001. 3. DETECTIVE INSPECTOR, CRIME BRANCH CID, HHW-II, SUB-UNIT, THRISSUR.PIN- 680 001. 4. STATE OF KERALA,REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, COCHIN-31. R1 TO R4 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.T.K. VIPINDAS THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts 2/- -2- WP(C)NO.14693/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1 COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER DATED NIL. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO.JUDGE sts R.BASANT & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. *********************** W.P(C) No.14693 of 2011-J ***************************** Dated this the 14th day of June, 2011 JUDGMENT BASANT, J. The petitioner has come to this Court complaining of harassment by the police. A crime of murder was committed in 2000, ie. on 10.10.2000. The petitioner has been arrayed as the 1st accused in that crime. The petitioner is already on bail. It is not disputed that the order granting bail obliges the petitioner to appear before the Investigating Officer as and when directed. According to the petitioner, unnecessary harassment and vexation is directed against the petitioner by the police. It is, in these circumstances, that the petitioner has come to this Court with this petition claiming issue of directions under Article 226 of the Constitution to avoid the vexatious and harassing action on the part of the police. 2. Notice was given to the learned Government Pleader. The learned Government Pleader after taking instructions submits that it is true that because of the peculiar circumstances of this case final report could not be filed till now. The petitioner is the 1st accused. The police do want to question him further. W.P(C) No.14693 of 2011-J 2 But he is not making himself available for service of notice/summons on him. The petitioner is bound to appear before the police as and when directed. He is obliged to do so under the order granting bail. Since the petitioner is making himself scarce, the police have been attempting to trace him. Every bona fide and legal effort made by the police cannot be termed as vexation and no directions are liable to be issued under Article 226 of the Constitution against the police for their legal and justifiable conduct. The petitioner may be directed to appear before the police on any specified date and later as and when directed by the police so long as the condition in the bail order is not modified. 3. We find the stand taken by the learned Government Pleader to be justified. It is not disputed that there is a condition in the order granting bail to the petitioner that he must appear before the Investigating Officer as and when directed. Both sides have not produced copy of the order granting bail. That condition in the bail order is not modified, it is conceded. The grievance of the police is that the petitioner is not available for service of notice and it is hence that police are obliged to enquire about him. We accept the submissions of the learned W.P(C) No.14693 of 2011-J 3 Government Pleader. To avoid any further controversy, we direct the petitioner to appear before the Investigating Officer, ie. the 2nd respondent, at 10 a.m on 21.06.2011. It is further made clear that so long as the condition in the bail order is not modified, the petitioner shall continue to appear before the police as and when directed by the police. If the police do require the presence of the petitioner, a written notice to that effect shall be served on the petitioner in accordance with law. 4. This Writ Petition is, in these circumstances, dismissed, but with the above specific directions. We may further observe that the police must make every endeavour to complete the investigation as expeditiously as possible. The option of the petitioner to seek modification of the condition in the bail order in accordance with law shall remain unfettered by any observation in this judgment. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) (K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE) rtr/