Disposed

Radhakrishnan v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC10 Dec 2010Bail Appl./7824/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an anticipatory bail application under IPC sections related to affray and assault, the Court refused immediate bail due to lack of interrogation. Instead, it directed the petitioner to surrender within two days for interrogation before a magistrate could grant regular bail.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to surrender on 20/12/2010 or 21/12/2010 for interrogation; regular bail to be granted by Magistrate thereafter after interrogation and hearing.

Radhakrishnan Vs State of Kerala — Anticipatory Bail | Kerala HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 10TH DECEMBER 2010 / 19TH AGRAHAYANA 1932

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 7824 of 2010()

¶6

--------------------------------------CRIME NO.1064/2010 OF ALAPPUZHA NORTH POLICE STATION. .........

¶7

PETITIONERS/1ST ACCUSED

¶8

-------------------------------------------

¶9

RADHAKRISHNAN, S/O. PARAMESWARAN NAIR, AGED 46 YEARS, NELLIPALLI HOUSE, KIZHAKUMCHERY THEKKMURIYIL, VAIKOM.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.S.SREEKUMAR

¶11

RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT

¶12

--------------------------------------------------

¶13

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

¶14

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.M.S.BREEZE

¶15

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

tss

¶17

V.RAMKUMAR, J.

¶18

Bail Application No.7824 of 2010 ----------------------------------------------------Dated this the 10^th day of December, 2010

¶19

ORDER

¶20

Petitioner, who is accused No.1 in Crime No.1064 of 2010 of Alappuzha North Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 452, 341, 323 & 506(i) I.P.C., seeks anticipatory bail.

¶21

The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the

¶22

application.

¶23

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 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 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.

¶24

Bail Appln.No.7824/2010

¶25

: 2 :

¶26

Accordingly, the petitioner shall surrender before the investigating officer on 20/12/2010 or on 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.

¶27

In case the accused while surrendering before the Investigating Officer has deprived the investigating officer sufficient time for interrogation, the officer shall complete the

¶28

Bail Appln.No.7824/2010

¶29

: 3 :

¶30

interrogation even if it is beyond the time limit fixed as above and submit a report to that effect to the Magistrate or the Court concerned. Likewise, the Magistrate or the Court also will not be bound by the time limit fixed as above if sufficient time was not available after the production or appearance of the accused .

¶31

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

¶32

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

¶33

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

¶34

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

¶35

Bail Appln.No.7824/2010

¶36

: 4 :

¶37

4. The petitioner shall not commit any offence while on bail.

¶38

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

¶39

This petition is disposed of as above.

¶40

Dated this the 10^th day of December, 2010.

¶41

V.RAMKUMAR, JUDGE

¶42

skj

Radhakrishnan v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Radhakrishnan 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sunilkumar Vs State of Kerala

P.H.Mohammed Vs State of Kerala and Others

Kevin Alex Vadakkedom Vs State of Kerala

Rajesh @ Vella Rajesh Vs State of Kerala

Shivaji Vs State of Kerala

Ullas Vs the State of Kerala