SAJU ANTONY Vs. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner complains of harassment by the police. He is being unnecessarily called to the Police Station for interrogation. According to the petitioner, there was a motor vehicle accident on 4/11/10 at Vadakara. A car involved in the accident hit against a motor-cycle and the rider of the motor- cycle suffered injuries and succumbed to the injuries. THE driver of the car abandoned the car and ran away. THE car has been seized. THE owner of the vehicle or the driver have not been identified and seized. THE needle of suspicion was pointed at the petitioner as the petitioner was allegedly involved in earlier similar instances of transportation of illicit liquor. THE police hence did want to question the petitioner. He has already been questioned. His culpable involvement is not confirmed yet. Investigation is in progress. THE grievance of the petitioner is that he is being unnecessarily harassed by repeated requests to appear before the police.

(2.) THE learned Government Pleader, after taking instructions, submits that while it is true that the petitioner was interrogated, the allegation of harassment is totally baseless. At the moment, the petitioner's complicity has not been ascertained. He is not required to be further questioned now. But that does not mean that the police will not need the petitioner for questioning hereafter. Hereafter, if the petitioner is required for interrogation, he shall be called in accordance with law after issuing proper notice. THE petitioner need not apprehend any harassment at the hands of the police, submits the learned Government Pleader.