Partly allowed

Sunilkumar v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC9 Dec 2010Bail Appl./3389/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

On an application for anticipatory bail in a cheating case, the High Court refused bail citing lack of interrogation but directed the accused to surrender for interrogation by the police, after which regular bail may be applied for.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail rejected; applicant directed to surrender for interrogation and then apply for regular bail after Magistrate's satisfaction.

Sunilkumar Vs State of Kerala — Cheating and Forgery | Kerala HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR THURSDAY, THE 9TH DECEMBER 2010 / 18TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 Bail Appl..No. 3389 of 2010() ----------------------------------------CRIME NO.263/2010 OF GURUVAYUR POLICE STATION, THRISSUR DISTRICT. ....................

¶3

APPLICANTS/ACCUSED ----------------------------------SUNILKUMAR, AGED 35 YEARS, S/O.KUTTAN, THERUPARAMBIL HOUSE, WEST MANGAD, THRISSUR.

¶4

BY SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU, SENIOR ADVOCATE, ADV. SRI.VIPIN NARAYAN.

¶5

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT

¶6

-------------------------------------------STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTING THE S.I. OF POLICE, GURUVAYUR POLICE STATION.

¶7

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR.V. TEKCHAND.

¶8

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶9

¶10

V.RAMKUMAR, J.

¶11

B. A. No.3389 of 2010

¶12

Dated this the 9^th day of December, 2010

¶13

ORDER

¶14

Petitioner, who is the sole accused in Crime No.263/2010 of Guruvayur Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 I.P.C., seeks anticipatory bail.

¶15

The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application.

¶16

After evaluating the factors and parameters which are to be taken into consideration in the light of paragraph 122 of the verdict dated 2-12-2010 of the Apex Court in

¶17

Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra and

¶18

Others (Crl.Appeal No. 2271 of 2010), I am of the view that anticipatory bail cannot be granted in a case of this nature, since

¶19

the investigating officer has not had the advantage of interrogating the petitioner. 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 allowed by the Magistrate or the Court having jurisdiction. Accordingly, the petitioner shall surrender

¶20

B.A.No.3389/2010 2

¶21

before the investigating officer on 20.12.2010 or on

¶22

21.12.2010 for the purpose of interrogation and recovery of incriminating material, if any. In case the investigating officer is of the view that having regard to the facts of the case arrest of the petitioner is imperative he shall record his reasons for the arrest in the case diary as insisted in paragraph 129 of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre's case (supra). The petitioner shall thereafter be produced before the Magistrate or the Court concerned and permitted to file an application for regular bail. In case the interrogation of the petitioner is without arresting him, the petitioner shall thereafter appear before the Magistrate or the Court concerned and apply for regular bail. The Magistrate or the Court on being satisfied that the petitioner has been interrogated by the police shall, after hearing the prosecution as well, release the petitioner on bail.

¶23

In case the accused while surrendering before the Investigating Officer has deprived the investigating officer sufficient time for interrogation, the officer shall complete the interrogation even if it is beyond the time limit fixed as above

¶24

B.A.No.3389/2010 3

¶25

and submit a report to that effect to the Magistrate or the Court concerned. Likewise, the Magistrate or the Court also will

¶26

not be bound by the time limit fixed as above if sufficient time was not available after the production or appearance of the accused .

¶27

The release of the petitioner shall be on the petitioner executing a bond for Rs.15,000/- (Rupees fifteen thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court concerned and subject

¶28

to the following conditions:-

¶29

1. The petitioner shall report before the Investigating Officer between 9 a.m. and 11 a.m. on all Wednesdays.

¶30

2. The petitioner shall make himself available for interrogation including custodial interrogation as and when required by the Investigating Officer.

¶31

3. Petitioner shall not influence or intimidate the prosecution witnesses nor shall he attempt to tamper with the evidence for the prosecution.

¶32

B.A.No.3389/2010 4

¶33

4. Petitioner shall not commit any offence while on bail.

¶34

5. If the petitioner commits breach of any of the above conditions, the bail granted to him shall be liable to be cancelled.

¶35

This petition is disposed of as above.

¶36

V.RAMKUMAR, JUDGE

¶37

Sunilkumar v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sunilkumar v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sureshkumar Vs State of Kerala

Shihabudeen Vs State of Kerala and Another

Shihabudeen Vs State of Kerala and Another

P.H.Mohammed Vs State of Kerala and Others

Kevin Alex Vadakkedom Vs State of Kerala

Jayachandran.R. Vs State of Kerala