HC turns down lawyer’s anticipatory bail plea

Says his custody was essential for probe into the murder of a real estate broker

October 31, 2017 06:40 pm | Updated November 01, 2017 08:27 am IST - KOCHI

The Kerala High Court

The Kerala High Court

The Kerala High Court on Tuesday turned down an anticipatory bail plea of Kochi-based criminal lawyer C.P. Udayabhanu in the case relating to the murder of Rajeev, a real estate broker in Thrissur.

Dismissing the petition, Justice A. Hariprasad observed that the petitioner’s custodial interrogation was highly essential. “‘Be you ever so high, the law is always above you’ is an unquestionable proposition,” the Judge added.

The court noted that from materials placed before the court and the case diary, a deeper probe was required into the role of the petitioner in the murder.

The judge declined the plea of the petitioner to grant him time to surrender before the court or the investigation officer. Rejecting the plea, the court pointed out that the specific allegation against the petitioner was made at the time of lodging the first information statement itself and so far no effective investigation had been conducted against him. The court, therefore, did not deem it fit to give further time to the petitioner for surrendering before the court or the investigation officer.

The court observed that the link between the petitioner and other arrested accused had to be established. Besides, details regarding the phone conversations between them would have to be unearthed.

Justice Hariprasad had heard the arguments on the petition after Justice P. Ubaid recused himself from hearing the petition in view of certain apprehensions raised by the counsel for the son of the real estate broker who had impleaded in the petition.

Suman Chakravarthy, senior government pleader, while vehemently opposing the plea for the pre-arrest bail, contended that the operation of kidnapping and subsequent torture of the real estate broker Rajiv leading to his death was done at the behest of the petitioner. It was evident from frequent phone calls between the petitioner and the other accused. He, therefore, argued that custodial interrogation of the petitioner was needed for making a breakthrough in the investigation.

0 / 0
Sign in to unlock member-only benefits!
  • Access 10 free stories every month
  • Save stories to read later
  • Access to comment on every story
  • Sign-up/manage your newsletter subscriptions with a single click
  • Get notified by email for early access to discounts & offers on our products
Sign in

Comments

Comments have to be in English, and in full sentences. They cannot be abusive or personal. Please abide by our community guidelines for posting your comments.

We have migrated to a new commenting platform. If you are already a registered user of The Hindu and logged in, you may continue to engage with our articles. If you do not have an account please register and login to post comments. Users can access their older comments by logging into their accounts on Vuukle.