Allowed

Madhu, S/O.Parameswaran v. S.I. of Police, Manjeri Police Station

Kerala HC25 Mar 2008Bail Appl./1367/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala granted anticipatory bail to a petitioner who was the sixth accused in a criminal case but had not been arrested. The investigation was complete, and the court directed his surrender on bail.

What did the court decide?

The Bail Application is allowed; petitioner must execute a bond of Rs.50,000 with two sureties and appear before the Magistrate or Investigating Officer as directed.

Madhu, S/O.Parameswaran Vs S.I. of Police, Manjeri Police… — Anticipatory Bail | Kerala HC (2008)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 25TH MARCH 2008 / 5TH CHAITHRA 1930

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 1367 of 2008()

¶6

----------------------------CRIME NO.244 OF 2007 OF MANJERI POLICE STATION

¶7

PETITIONER : 6TH ACCUSED

¶8

¶9

MADHU, S/O.PARAMESWARAN PAYYAPPILLY PARAMBU HOUSE, NORTH PARAVUR ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶10

BY ADV. SMT.K.V.RESHMI

¶11

RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT & STATE

¶12

¶13

S.I. OF POLICE, MANJERI POLICE STATION MANJERI.

¶14

THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM.

¶15

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.JAI GEORGE

¶16

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

R.BASANT, J

¶18

B.A.No.1367 of 2008

¶19

Dated this the 25^th day of March, 2008

¶20

ORDER

¶21

Application for anticipatory bail. Petitioner is the 6^th accused in a crime registered alleging offences punishable, inter alia, under Section 395 r/w 120 B I.P.C.

¶22

The crime was initially registered as Crime 244 of 2007 of Manjeri Police Station. While investigation into that crime was in progress, 6 accused persons were arrested by the North Paravur police in Crime 416 of 2007 under Section 41(1)(d) Cr.P.C. At the request of the Investigating Officer in Crime 244 of 2007, all the 6 accused persons along with records in Crime 416 of 2007 were forwarded to the C.J.M, Manjeri. The learned C.J.M, Manjeri accepted the request of the Investigating Officer in Crime 244 of 2007 to give accused 1 to 5 into police custody. The prayer to remand the petitioner-the 6^th accused was not accepted and the petitioner was sent back to the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, North Paravur. The learned Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, North Paravur by Annexure-1 order, had released the petitioner from custody as there was no case pending against him before the learned Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, North Paravur at that time. Investigation is now complete. Final report

¶23

B.A.No.1367 of 2008

¶24

¶25

was filed, but was returned by the learned Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Manjeri. The petitioner, in these circumstances, apprehends arrest.

¶26

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is absolutely innocent. Though the petitioner was produced as an accused in Crime 244 of 2007 before the Manjeri police, he was not arrested and he was returned to the custody of the learned Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, North Paravur. In these circumstances, it is not necessary to insist that the petitioner should be arrested and detained in custody notwithstanding the fact that the investigation is complete and the final report has already been filed, anticipatory bail may be granted to the petitioner, it is prayed.

¶27

The learned Public Prosecutor does not oppose the application, but only submits that the petitioner may be directed to appear before the learned Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Manjeri and execute the requisite bonds. His presence and appearance before court may be insisted and ensured, it is submitted.

¶28

Having considered all the relevant circumstances, I am satisfied that the petitioner can be granted anticipatory bail now

¶29

B.A.No.1367 of 2008

¶30

¶31

subject to appropriate terms and conditions. In the absence of opposition, it is not necessary for me to advert to facts in any greater detail in this order.

¶32

In the result, the Bail Application is, allowed. The following directions are issued under Section 438 Cr.P.C.

¶33

i) The petitioner shall appear before the learned Magistrate at 11 a.m on 01.04.2008. He shall be enlarged on regular bail on his executing a bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate;

¶34

ii) The petitioner shall make himself available for interrogation before the Investigating Officer between 10 a.m and 3 p.m on 02.04.2008 and thereafter as and when directed by the Investigating Officer in writing to do so;

¶35

iii) If the petitioner does not appear before the learned Magistrate as directed in clause (i), directions issued above shall thereafter stand revoked and the police shall be at liberty to arrest the petitioner and deal with him in accordance with law as if those directions were not issued at all;

¶36

iv) If the petitioner were arrested prior to his surrender on 01.04.08 as directed in clause (1) above, he shall be released from custody on his executing a bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only) without any sureties undertaking to appear before the learned Magistrate on 01.04.08.

¶37

(R.BASANT, JUDGE)

¶38

rtr/-

Madhu, S/O.Parameswaran v. S.I. of Police, Manjeri Police Station

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Madhu, S/O.Parameswaran v. S.I. of Police, Manjeri Police Station

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Praveen Kumar Vs State of Kerala

Sajid &Another Vs the Sub Inspector of Police,Valapattanam

Joseph Mathew @ Tomy Vs State of Kerala

C.M.Basheer Vs State of Kerala and Another

Ashokan Vs State of Kerala

Muhammed Ajeer Vs Station House Officer, Taliparamba Ps.