Dismissed

Sajeev.K.R v. Sub Inspector of Police

Kerala HC15 Jun 2009Bail Appl./2140/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of an application for anticipatory bail filed by an accused alleging non-compliance by the Investigating Officer with earlier surrender directions. The Judge rejected the petitioner's claim and dismissed the bail application due to delay and failure to follow the earlier order.

What did the court decide?

The bail application filed under Section 438 CrPC was dismissed.

Sajeev.K.R Vs Sub Inspector of Police — Anticipatory Bail | Kerala HC (2009)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN MONDAY, THE 15TH JUNE 2009 / 25TH JYAISHTA 1931

¶4

Bail Appl..No. 2140 of 2009() ----------------------------CRIME NO.548/2002 OF NADAKKAVU POLICE STATION

¶5

PETITIONER/IST ACCUSED :

¶6

¶7

SAJEEV.K.R., KARUTHEDAM PARAMBU, POOVATTUPARAMBA P.O., KOZHIKODE.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.T.G.RAJENDRAN

¶9

RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT/STATE

¶10

¶11

THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, NADAKKAVU POLICE STATION.

¶12

STATE, REP.BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

¶13

PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.M.S.BREEZ

¶14

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

K.T.SANKARAN, J.

¶16

B.A.No.2140 of 2009

¶17

Dated this the 15^th day of June, 2009

¶18

ORDER

¶19

This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of

¶20

the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner is the first accused in Crime No.548 of 2002 of Nadakkavu Police Station.

¶21

The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 465, 468 and 471 of IPC and Section 13(2) of the Transplantation Human Organs Act 1994.

¶22

The petitioner moved Bail Application No.2578 of 2008 before this Court which was disposed of as per Annexure I order dated 22^nd May 2008. Paragraph 3 of the order reads as follows:

¶23

“Anticipatory bail cannot be granted in a case of this nature. But at the same time, I am inclined to permit the petitioner to surrender before the Investigating Officer for the purpose of interrogation and then to have his application for bail considered by the Magistrate having jurisdiction. Accordingly, the petitioner shall surrender before the Investigating Officer on any day between 27.5.2008 and 29.5.2008 for the purpose of interrogation and recovery of incriminating material, if any. The petitioner shall thereafter be produced on the same day before the Magistrate who shall consider and dispose of his application for regular bail preferably on the same date on which it is filed. This petition is disposed of as above.”

¶24

The present Bail Application is filed on 15.4.2009 about 11 months after the date fixed for surrender. Now, the petitioner says

¶25

BA No.2140 /2009

¶26

¶27

that he reported before the Investigating Officer as directed by this Court and he was directed to appear as and when required by the Investigating Officer and thereafter, no direction was issued by the Investigating Officer to appear. Now, the petitioner apprehends arrest. It cannot be believed that in the light of the specific directions to the Investigating Officer, to produce the petitioner before the Magistrate, the Investigating Officer did not comply with the same on the surrender of the petitioner before him. Moreover, if that was the conduct on the part of the Investigating Officer, naturally one would expect the petitioner to approach this Court complaining about such conduct on the part of the investigating officer. Now, after the lapse of about 11 months, the petitioner attempts to makes out a case that he has complied with Annexure I order dated 22^nd May 2008. I am not inclined to accept such a contention.

¶28

The Bail Application is accordingly dismissed.

¶29

K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE

¶30

csl

Sajeev.K.R v. Sub Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sajeev.K.R v. Sub Inspector of Police

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

A.B.Rauf & Others Vs State of Kerala,Rep.by P.P.,H.C.of Keral

Mashood Vs State of Kerala

Rajan and Another Vs State of Kerala

S.Abdul Nasar Vs State of Kerala

Noushad and Another Vs State of Kerala

Sumesh Vs State of Kerala