The Court denied anticipatory bail in a case involving offences under IPC and Arms Act due to lack of interrogation. Accused were directed to surrender for interrogation before applying for regular bail.
Accused directed to surrender for interrogation on specified dates and then apply for regular bail.
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
WEDNESDAY, THE 30TH MARCH 2011 / 9TH CHAITHRA 1933 Bail Appl..No. 1850 of 2011()
CRIME NO. 131/2011 of NEDUPUZHA POLICE STATION, THRISSUR
PETITIONERS/ACCUSED:-
BY ADV. SRI.K.P.DANDAPANI, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI
RESPONDENTS:
ADV. SRI. M.S. BREEZE, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
V. RAMKUMAR, J.
=================
Bail Application No. 1850 of 2011
=================
Dated this the 30th day of March, 2011.
ORDER
Petitioners who are accused Nos. 1 to 4 in Crime No. 131 of 2011 of Nedupuzha Police Station, Thrissur for offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 323, 324, 308 and 149 I.P.C and Section 27 of the Arms Act, seek anticipatory bail.
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 considered by the
B.A. No. 1850/2011
-:2:-
Magistrate or the Court having jurisdiction. Accordingly, the petitioners are directed to surrender before the investigating officer on 11.04.2011 or on 12.04.2011 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 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 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, consider and dispose of their application for regular bail preferably on the same date on which it is filed.
In case the petitioners while surrendering before the Investigating Officer have deprived the investigating officer
B.A. No. 1850/2011
-:3:-
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 .
This petition is disposed of as above. Dated this the 30th day of March, 2011.
sd/- V.RAMKUMAR, JUDGE
rv
//True Copy//
P.A to Judge.
B.A. No. 1850/2011 -:4:-
2 issues framed by the court
Whether anticipatory bail can be granted when the investigating officer has not interrogated the accused.
How to proceed with bail application when the accused surrender for interrogation.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra and OthersRelied on¶28
Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra and Others (2010 4) KLT 930
2 provisions across 2 enactments
TINSON and ORS.
STATE OF KERALA
V. RAMKUMAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
