Partly allowed

Sharafraz v. Station House Officer, Hosdurg

Kerala HC13 Dec 2010Bail Appl./7906/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala rejected the grant of anticipatory bail in a case involving public disorder and assault. Instead, the Court directed the accused to surrender for interrogation to allow the investigating officer an advantage in the proceedings. Regular bail consideration was permitted afterward upon satisfaction regarding the interrogation.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail denied; petitioner directed to surrender for interrogation on 23.12.2010 or 24.12.2010 before applying for regular bail.

Sharafraz Vs Station House Officer, Hosdurg — Anticipatory Bail | Kerala HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR MONDAY, THE 13TH DECEMBER 2010 / 22ND AGRAHAYANA 1932 Bail Appl..No. 7906 of 2010 -----------------------------------[CRIME NO.1228/2010 OF HOSDURG POLICE STATION, KASARAGOD DISTRICT] ................

¶3

PETITIONER/ 1ST ACCUSED: ------------------------------------------

¶4

SHARFRAZ, AGED 34 YEARS, S/O.ABBAS ALI, PARAPPALLY HOUSE, AMBALATHARA POST, HOSDURG TALUK, KASARAGOD DISTRICT.

¶5

BY ADV. SRI.T.MADHU.

¶6

RESPONDENT/ STATE: ---------------------------------

¶7

THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER HOSDURG POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

¶8

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. M.S. BREEZE.

¶9

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶10

Prv.

¶11

V.RAMKUMAR, J.

¶12

Bail Application No.7906 of 2010 ----------------------------------------------Dated this the 13^th day of December, 2010

¶13

ORDER

¶14

Petitioner, who is the first accused in Crime No.1228/2010

¶15

of Hosdurg Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341 and 324 read with Section 149 I.P.C., seeks anticipatory bail.

¶16

The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the

¶17

application.

¶18

After evaluating the factors and parameters which are to be taken into consideration in the light of paragraph 122

¶19

of the verdict dated 2-12-2010 of the Apex Court in

¶20

Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra

¶21

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

¶22

the Investigating Officer for the purpose of interrogation and

¶23

then to have his application for bail considered by the

¶24

B.A.No.7906/2010 2

¶25

Magistrate or the Court having jurisdiction. Accordingly, the petitioner shall surrender before the investigating officer on 23.12.2010 or on 24.12.2010 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, consider and dispose of his application for regular bail preferably on the same date on which it is filed.

¶26

B.A.No.7906/2010 3

¶27

In case the petitioner 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 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 petitioner.

¶28

This petition is disposed of as above.

¶29

V.RAMKUMAR, JUDGE

¶30

Sharafraz v. Station House Officer, Hosdurg

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sharafraz v. Station House Officer, Hosdurg

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

Rajesh @ Vella Rajesh Vs State of Kerala

Shivaji Vs State of Kerala

Ullas Vs the State of Kerala

Prabhakaran Vs State of Kerala and Another

Prabhakaran Vs State of Kerala

Arshad.K Vs State