Judgment on anticipatory bail in an attempt to murder case. Court directed petitioners to surrender for interrogation instead of immediate bail, granting them a conditional release order subject to police summons and bond.
Conditional anticipatory bail granted; directed to surrender for interrogation; release on bond with conditions.
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 THURSDAY, THE 24TH FEBRUARY 2011 / 5TH PHALGUNA 1932
Bail Appl..No. 1169 of 2011() -----------------------------------------(CRIME NO.28/2011 OF MANNUTHI POLICE STATION,THRISSUR) .....
PETITIONERS/ACCUSED:
---------------------------------------
1. ASHIK, S/O.KUNJUMON, AGED 40 YEARS, VARATHINKAL HOUSE, POOTHOL, THRISSUR.
2. ANSAR K.AHAMMED ALIAS SUKU, S/O.K.K.AHAMMED, AGED 34 YEARS, KOOZHIKANDATHIL HOUSE, KIZHAKKUMPURAM, VIDYA JYOTHI (VIA), MATHILAKAM, PIN-680 685.
BY ADV. SRI.P.M.ZIRAJ
RESPONDENT(S):
---------------------------
STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HONOURABLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MANNUTHI POLICE STATION, THRISSUR.
BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. C.S. HRITHWIK
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Kss
V. RAMKUMAR, J.
Bail Application No.1169 of 2011
Dated this the 24th day of February, 2011
ORDER
Petitioners, who are accused Nos.1 & 2 in Crime No.28 of 2011 of Mannuthi Police Station for an offence punishable under Section 307 & 34 I.P.C., seek anticipatory bail.
B.A.No.1169/2011
-:2:-
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 petitioners is imperative he shall record his reasons for the arrest in the case diary as insisted in paragraph 129 of Siddharam's case (supra). The petitioners 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 petitioners is without arresting them, the petitioners shall thereafter appear before the Magistrate or the Court concerned on the same day or on the next day and apply for regular bail. The Magistrate or the Court on being satisfied that the petitioners have been interrogated by the police shall, after hearing the prosecution as well, release the petitioners on bail.
B.A.No.1169/2011
-:3:-
bound by the time limit fixed as above if sufficient time was not available after the production or appearance of the petitioners .
1. The petitioners shall report before the Investigating Officer between 9 a.m. and 11 a.m. on all Wednesdays.
2. The petitioners shall make themselves available for interrogation including custodial interrogation as and when required by the Investigating Officer.
3. Petitioners shall not influence or intimidate the prosecution witnesses nor shall they attempt to tamper with the evidence for the prosecution.
4. Petitioners shall not commit any offence while on bail.
5. If the petitioners commit breach of any of the above conditions, the bail granted to them shall be liable to be cancelled.
This petition is disposed of as above.
V.RAMKUMAR, JUDGE
skj
3 issues framed by the court
Whether anticipatory bail should be granted in an attempt to murder case where investigation has not commenced.
Whether restrictions on movement and mandatory police reporting can be imposed while granting limited leeway for interrogation.
Whether a conditional order directing surrender for interrogation followed by regular bail is sustainable.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra and OthersApplied¶22
Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra and Others (2010 (4) KLT 930)
1 provisions across 1 enactments
ASHIK
ANSAR K.AHAMMED ALIAS SUKU
STATE OF KERALA
V. RAMKUMAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
V. RAMKUMAR
Parties & counsel
