Partly allowed

Aji I. v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC20 Dec 2010Bail Appl./7968/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala declined anticipatory bail but permitted the petitioner to surrender for interrogation within specified dates. The court directed the investigating officer to record reasons if arrest becomes imperative, after which regular bail shall be considered by the Magistrate.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner allowed to surrender for interrogation by 30.12.2010 or 31.12.2010; regular bail to be applied for before Magistrate thereafter.

Aji I. 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

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

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 7968 of 2010()

¶6

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

¶7

(CRIME NO.1271/2010 OF SASTHAMCOTTA POLICE STATION, KOLLAM)

¶8

PETITIONER

¶9

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

¶10

AJI I, AGED 26,S/O.IBRAHIMKUTTY,VETTUKALANJILIL VEEDU KAMPALADY P.O.,PORUVAZHY,KOLLAM

¶11

BY ADV. SRI.A.AHZAR

¶12

RESPONDENT(S):

¶13

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

¶14

1. STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY THE GOVERNMENT PLEADER, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM,

¶15

2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, SASTHAMCOTTA,POLICE STATION, SASTHAMCOTTA

¶16

PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.M.S.BREESE

¶17

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

¶18

svs/

¶19

V. RAMKUMAR, J.

¶20

B.A. No.7968 of 2010

¶21

.......................................... Dated this the 20^th day of December, 2010

¶22

ORDER

¶23

Petitioner, who is the sole accused in Crime No.1271/2010 of Sasthamcotta Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 324 and 326 read with 427 I.P.C., seeks anticipatory bail.

¶24

The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the

¶25

application.

¶26

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

¶27

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 considered by the Magistrate or the

¶28

B.A. No.7968 /2010

¶29

-:2:-

¶30

Court having jurisdiction. Accordingly, the petitioner shall surrender before the investigating officer on 30.12.2010 or on

¶31

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 arrest in the case-diary as insisted in paragraph 129 of

¶32

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.

¶33

In case the petitioner while surrendering before the Investigating Officer has deprived the investigating

¶34

B.A. No.7968 /2010 -:3:-

¶35

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.

¶36

This petition is disposed of as above. Dated this the 20th day of December, 2010.

¶37

V.RAMKUMAR, JUDGE

¶38

Aji I. v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Aji I. 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

Ambujam Vs State of Kerala

Anoop Vs State of Kerala & Another

Natgaraj and Another Vs State of Kerala

Eswarachandra Vidyasagar Vs State of Kerala and Another

Sajeev Kumar Vs State of Kerala

Sobi Sebastian Vs State of Kerala and Another