GORDON CHARLES PEREIRA Vs. INSPECTOR OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Court Made the following order: Heard Shri. E. Venkateshwaran, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, Shri. S. Vasudevan, learned counsel appearing for the Intervenor and Shri. T. Asaf Ali, Director General of Prosecution, State Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala and Special Attorney Lok Ayukta and perused the available records. The petitioner apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offence under S.304 r/w 34 IPC in Crime No. 228 of 2012 and seeks anticipatory bail.

(2.) THE case of the prosecution in Crime No. 228 of 2012 is as follows: The petitioner herein is the Master Mariner of the ship by name MV Prabhudaya owned by M/s. Tolani Shipping Company. The ship was travelling from Singapore to China. During the transit, the ship was said to be involved in the death of 5 fishermen apart from causing injuries to two fishermen, who were sailing in a fishing Trawler. According to the prosecution, the ship rammed, over the fishing Trawler of the deceased and the injured. It is the further case of the prosecution that thereafter, the ship diverted its course. In those circumstances, originally a case has been registered in Crime No. 228 of 2012 for the alleged offence under S.304 IPC. In pursuant to the investigation done, the Respondents 2 and 3 have modified the sections for the alleged offences under S.304 and S.34 IPC making it as non - bailable.

(3.) THE learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that it is not the petitioner's ship that was involved, but some other ship by name M. T. Grace Victoria. The petitioner is ready and willing to co - operate with the investigation and that is why the petitioner along with the ship is presently at the Chennai port. Originally, the case has been registered for a bailable offence. Even assuming it is an accident, the alleged offence under S.304 r/w S.34 is not made out. As the petitioner is willing and ready to cooperate with the investigation, the respondents 2 and 3 can conduct the investigation in the ship at Chennai. Considering the volatile situation prevailing in the State of Kerala, the interrogation will have to be done at Chennai. In any case, the custodial interrogation is not required. Therefore, the learned Senior Counsel would submit that the entire interrogation of the petitioner will have to be done at Chennai.