Partly allowed

Geevan-Jo-Dharsan v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC1 Mar 2011Bail Appl./1400/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Justice V. Ramkumar denied immediate anticipatory bail pending interrogation. He directed petitioners to surrender on fixed dates for police inquiry and produce a report allowing regular bail if satisfied interrogation was conducted without illegal arrest.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners directed to surrender for interrogation by specified date; permitted to apply for regular bail thereafter; bail subject to bond and conditions.

Geevan-Jo-Dharsan Vs State of Kerala — Anticipatory Bail | Kerala HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 1ST MARCH 2011 / 10TH PHALGUNA 1932

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 1400 of 2011()

¶6

---------------------------------------( CRIME NO.340/2010 OF VELLARADA POLICE STATION THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT)

¶7

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 & 2

¶8

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

¶9

1. GEEVAN - JO - DHARSAN, S/O.SUDARSAN, K.S.BHAVAN, KILIYOOR, VELLARADA.P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶10

2. OMANA SUDHARSHAN, W/O.SUDHARSHAN, K.S.BHAVAN, KILIYOOR, VELLARADA.P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶11

BY ADV. SRI.N.MAHESH

¶12

RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT

¶13

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

¶14

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

¶15

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.M.S.BREEZE

¶16

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

sts

¶18

V. RAMKUMAR, J.

¶19

Bail Appln.No.1400 of 2011 -----------------------------------------------Dated this the 1^st day of March, 2011

¶20

ORDER

¶21

Petitioners, who are accused Nos.1 & 2 in Crime No.340 of 2010 of Vellarada Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 420 & 34 I.P.C., seek anticipatory bail.

¶22

The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application.

¶23

After evaluating the factors and parameters which are to be taken into consideration under paragraph 122 of the verdict of the Apex Court in Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra and Others (2010 (4) KLT 930) , 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 petitioners. But at the same time, I am inclined to permit the petitioners to surrender before the Investigating Officer for the purpose of interrogation and then to have their application for bail allowed by the Magistrate or the Court having jurisdiction. Accordingly, the petitioners are directed to surrender before the investigating officer on 14/03/2011 or on 15/03/2011 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

¶24

B.A.No.1400/2011

¶25

-:2:-

¶26

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.

¶27

In case the petitioners while surrendering before the Investigating Officer have 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 accused.

¶28

The release of the petitioners shall be on each of the petitioners 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:-

¶29

B.A.No.1400/2011

¶30

-:3:-

¶31

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

¶32

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

¶33

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

¶34

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

¶35

5. If the petitioners commit breach of any of the above conditions, the bail granted to them shall be liable to be cancelled.

¶36

This petition is disposed of as above.

¶37

Dated this the 1^st day of March, 2011.

¶38

V.RAMKUMAR, JUDGE.

¶39

skj

Geevan-Jo-Dharsan v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Geevan-Jo-Dharsan 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

Kunjumon Mathew & Another Vs State of Kerala

K.S.E.Board Vs M.Chathutty Nair

Appukuttan P.M Vs State Bank of Travancore

Deepu Alex & Ors. Vs State of Kerala

V.v.Sundaran Vs Jayaprakash

A.T.Mammed Koya & Another Vs a.T.Ummar Koya