Partly allowed

Kunjumon.P.P v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC16 Mar 2011Bail Appl./1562/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court denied anticipatory bail in a Forest Act case pending police interrogation. The petitioner was directed to surrender on specified dates for interrogation and subsequent bail application before the Magistrate, subject to strict bond conditions.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail denied; petitioner directed to surrender for interrogation; regular bail granted conditionally pending surrender and investigation.

Kunjumon.P.P 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 WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH MARCH 2011 / 25TH PHALGUNA 1932

¶4

Bail Appl..No. 1562 of 2011() -----------------------------------------(OR.NO.2/2011 OF VAZHAYANI FOREST RANGE, VADAKKANCHERRY, THRISSUR DISTRICT)

¶5

PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

¶6

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

¶7

KUNJUMON P.P., S/O. POULOSE, AGE 46 YEARS, POTTAKKARAN HOUSE, ANGAMALY.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.S.RAJEEV

¶9

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

¶10

STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM (OR NO.2/2011 OF VAZHAYANI FOREST RANGE, VADAKKANCHERY, THRISSUR DISTRICT).

¶11

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. M.S. BREEZ

¶12

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶13

Kss

¶14

V. RAMKUMAR, J.

¶15

======================

¶16

B.A. No. 1562 of 2011

¶17

====================== Dated this the 16^th day of March, 2011.

¶18

ORDER

¶19

Petitioner, who is the 3^rd accused in O.R.No.2/2011 of Vazhayani Forest Range for an offence punishable under Section 27 (i) (e) (4) of the Forest Act, seeks anticipatory bail.

¶20

The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application.

¶21

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 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 allowed by the Magistrate or the Court having jurisdiction. Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to surrender before the investigating officer on 28.03.2011 or on 29.03.2011 for the purpose of interrogation and recovery of incriminating material, if

¶22

B.A.No. 1562 /2011

¶23

-:2:-

¶24

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 on the same day or on the next day 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.

¶25

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

¶26

B.A.No. 1562 /2011

¶27

-:3:-

¶28

available after the production or appearance of the accused .

¶29

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:-

¶30

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

¶31

The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person who is acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him or her from disclosing any information to the court or to the police or to any other person in authority.

¶32

The petitioner shall not establish any contact with any of the witnesses or accused in the case.

¶33

The petitioner shall not influence or intimidate the prosecution witnesses or the victims nor shall he attempt to tamper with the evidence for the prosecution.

¶34

The petitioner shall not commit any offence while on bail.

¶35

B.A.No. 1562 /2011

¶36

-:4:-

¶37

The petitioner shall notify to the Court his place of residence before executing the bail bond.

¶38

This petition is disposed of as above.

¶39

Dated this the 16^th day of March, 2011.

¶40

dmb

¶41

V.RAMKUMAR, JUDGE

Kunjumon.P.P v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kunjumon.P.P 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

Prabhu Vs State of Kerala

M/S.Pragathi Rubber Mills Vs M/S.Paragon Rubber Industries

Shaik Vs Melachetta Mohammedkoya

K.N.Venkiteswara Pai & Another Vs K.G.Sathish Chandra Babu & Others

Velayudhan Padmanabhan Vs Thyagrajan.K.

Malabar Cements Ltd. Vs Suresh Babu