Partly allowed

Ansari and 3 Others v. State of Kerala and Another

Kerala HC4 Apr 2011Bail Appl./1821/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Accused sought anticipatory bail. The High Court of Kerala refused it due to lack of police interrogation. It directed accused to surrender for interrogation by 18-04-2011, produce a case diary if arrested, and seek regular bail thereafter. Bail granted only after interrogation on a bond with conditions.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners directed to surrender for interrogation by 18-04-2011. Application for anticipatory bail refused. Regular bail sought after interrogation. Bail granted on bond conditions.

Ansari and 3 Others Vs State of Kerala and Another — Bail and Remand | Kerala HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR

¶3

MONDAY, THE 4TH APRIL 2011 / 14TH CHAITHRA 1933

¶4

Bail Appl..No. 1821 of 2011() ----------------------Crime No. 150 of 2011 in Kallambalam Police Station

¶5

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1TO 4

¶6

¶7

ANSARI,AGED 24 YEARS,S/O.AMEER, ANSARI MANZIL,VELLOOR KONAM,MARUTHI KUNNU.P.O, NAVAIKULAM,TRIVANDRUM.

¶8

MUHAMMED ASIF,AGED 21 YEARS,S/O.HUMAYOON KABEER,KADAYIL VEEDU,VELLOOR KONAM,NAVAIKULAM, TRIVANDRUM.

¶9

SHAMEER,AGED 21 YEARS,S/O.BASHEER, SHAMEER MANZIL,VELLOOR KONAM,NAVAIKULAM, TRIVANDRUM.

¶10

HASHIM,AGED 20 YEARS,S/O.SUBAIRUDEEN, HASEENA MANZIL,VELLOOR KONAM,NAVAIKULAM, TRIVANDRUM.

¶11

BY ADV. SRI.THOMAS ABRAHAM

¶12

RESPONDENT(S):

¶13

¶14

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

¶15

SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,KALLAMBALAM POLICE STATION,TRIVANDRUM DISTRICT.

¶16

Public Prosecutor Sri. V. Manu

¶17

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/04/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

V. RAMKUMAR, J.

¶19

.........................................

¶20

Bail Application No. 1821 of 2011

¶21

..........................................

¶22

Dated: 04-04-2011

¶23

ORDER

¶24

Petitioners who are accused Nos. 1 to 4 in Crime No. 150 of 2011 of Kallambalam Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram District, for offences punishable under Sections 294 (b), 452, 506 (1), 341, 324 and 427 read with Sec. 34 I.P.C. seek anticipatory bail.

¶25

The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application.

¶26

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 16-04-2011 or on 18-4-2011. 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

¶27

B.A.No.1821 of 2011 -:2:-

¶28

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.

¶29

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 petitioners .

¶30

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:-

¶31

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

¶32

B.A.No.1821 of 2011

¶33

-:3:-

¶34

2. The petitioners 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.

¶35

3. The petitioners shall make themselves available for interrogation as and when required by the police at any time till the filing of the final report.

¶36

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

¶37

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

¶38

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

¶39

7. The petitioners shall notify to the Court their place of residence before executing the bail bond.

¶40

8. Before executing the bail bond each of the petitioners shall deposit a sum of Rs. 2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only) towards the loss sustained by the de facto complainant.

¶41

This petition is disposed of as above. Dated this the 4^th day of April, 2011.

¶42

Sd/-V.RAMKUMAR, JUDGE

¶43

ani/

¶44

/true copy/

¶45

P.S. to Judge

Ansari and 3 Others v. State of Kerala and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ansari and 3 Others 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

Junaid Ali @ Junais Vs State of Kerala

Najeeb Vs State of Kerala

Riyas Vs Excise Circle Inspector

Indramohan Sahadevan Vs State of Kerala

Raju Vs State of Kerala

Sivanandan @ Sivan Vs State of Kerala