Allowed

Eswarachandra Vidyasagar v. State of Kerala and Another

Kerala HC20 Dec 2010Bail Appl./7925/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Kerala refused anticipatory bail in a case under IPC Sections 468, 471 and Passport Act. Court permitted petitioner to surrender for interrogation before an investigating officer, followed by application for regular bail subject to bond conditions.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner permitted to surrender for interrogation before 30.12.2010 or 31.12.2010; thereafter eligible for regular bail upon completion of interrogation and hearing of prosecution, on bond of Rs.15,

Eswarachandra Vidyasagar Vs State of Kerala and Another — Cheque Dishonour | Kerala HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR

¶4

MONDAY, THE 20TH DECEMBER 2010 / 29TH AGRAHAYANA 1932

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 7925 of 2010()

¶6

----------------------------------------CMP.3020/2010 of D.C. & SESSIONS COURT,KOLLAM CRIME NO. 766/2010 OF ERAVIPURAM POLICE STATION, KOLLAM DISTRICT

¶7

.................... PETITIONER/ 5TH ACCUSED -----------------------------------------

¶8

ESWARACHANDRA VIDYASAGAR AGED 50 YEARS, S/O.GOPALAN, POSTMAN, ERAVIPURAM POST OFFICE, ERAVIPURAM, KOLLAM RESIDING AT GOPALA MANDIRAM, ADICHNALLOOR KOLLAM.

¶9

BY ADVS. SRI.H.B.SHENOY SRI.B.ASHOK SHENOY SMT.LAKSHMI B.SHENOY SRI.ABU MATHEW SRI.SOBHAN GEORGE

¶10

RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------

¶11

1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,A ERNAKULAM, KOCHI 682 031.

¶12

2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE ERAVIPURAM POLICE STATION, ERAVIPURAM KOLLAM 691011

¶13

R1 & R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.C.S.HRITHWIK

¶14

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

sts

¶16

V.RAMKUMAR, J.

¶17

B. A. No.7925 of 2010

¶18

Dated this the 20^th day of December, 2010

¶19

ORDER

¶20

Petitioner, who is the 5^th accused in Crime No.766/2010 of Eravipuram Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 468 and 471 I.P.C. and Section 10(3)(b) read with Section 12(b) of the Passport Act, 1967, seeks anticipatory bail.

¶21

The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application.

¶22

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

¶23

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

¶24

B. A. No.7925 of 2010 2

¶25

before the investigating officer on 30.12.2010 or on 31.12.2010 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

¶26

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 interrogation even if it is beyond the time limit fixed as above

¶28

B. A. No.7925 of 2010 3

¶29

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 .

¶30

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 to the following conditions:-

¶31

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

¶32

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

¶33

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

¶34

B. A. No.7925 of 2010 4

¶35

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

¶36

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

¶37

This petition is disposed of as above.

¶38

V.RAMKUMAR, JUDGE

¶39

Eswarachandra Vidyasagar v. State of Kerala and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Eswarachandra Vidyasagar v. State of Kerala and Another

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

Ambujam Vs State of Kerala

Anoop Vs State of Kerala & Another

Natgaraj and Another Vs State of Kerala

Sajeev Kumar Vs State of Kerala

Aji I. Vs State of Kerala

Sobi Sebastian Vs State of Kerala and Another