The High Court at Ernakulam refused anticipatory bail in a riot-related case before interrogation. The court directed accused persons to surrender on specified dates for police interrogation and subsequent production before a Magistrate to apply for regular bail.
Directive to surrender for interrogation and then apply for regular bail before Magistrate.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR
TUESDAY, THE 7TH DECEMBER 2010 / 16TH AGRAHAYANA 1932
Bail Appl..No. 7550 of 2010() ---------------------------------------( CRIME NO. 1235/2010 OF PARIPPALLY POLICE STATION, KOLLAM DISTRICT) ------------------
PETITIONERS/ ACCUSED 1,2,4,5,& 6
-----------------------------------------------------
1. PRAVEEN, S/O.SREEDHARAN NAIR, PADMANABHA NIVAS, KARIMPALOOR, PUTHENKULAM P.O., PARIPPALLY VILLAGE, PIN-691 302.
2. BABU, BINU NIVAS, KARIMPALOOR, PUTHENKULAM P.O., PARIPPALLY VILLAGE, PIN-691 302.
3. SUDHEER, S/O.SURENDRAN PILLAI, SARASWATHI MANDIRAM, KARIMPALOOR, PUTHENKULAM P.O. PARIPPALLY VILLAGE, PIN-691 302. ,
4. PRADEEP, S/O.MADHAVAN PILLAI, KUNNUMPURATH HOUSE, KARIMPALOOR, PUTHENKULAM P.O., PARIPPALLY VILLAGE, PIN-691 302.
5. MADHUSOODHANAN PILLAI, S/O.RAGHAVAN ASAN, M.S.SADANAM, KARIMPALOOR, PUTHENKULAM P.O., PARIPPALLY VILLAGE, PIN-691 302.
BY ADV. SRI.K.RAVEENDRAN
RESPONDENT(S):
-------------------------
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.
2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PARIPPALLY POLICE STATION.
R1 & R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. V. TEK CHAND
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
sts
V. RAMKUMAR, J.
......................................... B.A. No. 7550 of 2010
..........................................
Dated this the 7th day of December, 2010
ORDER
Petitioners, who are accused Nos.1, 2 and 4 to 6 in Crime No.1235/2010 of Parippally Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 452 and 308 read with Section 34 I.P.C., seek anticipatory bail.
be taken into consideration in the light of paragraph 122 of the verdict dated 2-12-2010 of the Apex Court in Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra and 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 the investigating officer has not had the advantage of interrogating the petitioners. But at the same time, I am inclined to permit the petitioners to surrender before the Investigating Officer for the purpose of interrogation and then to have their application for bail considered by the Magistrate having jurisdiction. Accordingly, the petitioners shall surrender before the investigating officer on 17.12.2010 or on 18.12.2010 for the purpose
B.A.No.7550/2010 2
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 petitioners are 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 petitioners shall thereafter be produced before the Magistrate who on being satisfied that the petitioners have been interrogated by the police shall consider and dispose of their application for regular bail preferably on the same date on which it is filed. In case the interrogation of the petitioners are without arresting him, the petitioners shall thereafter appear before the Magistrate and apply for regular bail. The Magistrate on being satisfied that the petitioners have been interrogated by the police shall consider and dispose of their application for regular bail preferably on the same date on which it is filed.
This petition is disposed of as above.
V.RAMKUMAR, JUDGE
ln
2 issues framed by the court
Whether anticipatory bail should be granted before interrogation.
Whether the accused should surrender for interrogation before applying for regular bail.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra and OthersReferred¶28
Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra and Others (Crl.Appeal No. 2271 of 2010)
Praveen
Babu
Sudheer
Pradeep
Madhusoodhanan Pillai
State of Kerala
V. Ramkumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
