Court refused anticipatory bail under the Essential Commodities Act. Directed petitioner to surrender for interrogation and apply for regular bail post-invocation, with consideration preferably on the filing date.
Direction to surrender for interrogation and seek regular bail post-interrogation.
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. 1903 of 2011() -----------------------------
CRIME NO. 205/2011 of THENMALA POLICE STATION, KOLLAM
PETITIONERS/ ACCUSED NO.1:------------------------------------
P.ABDUL KAREEM, AGED 62, S/O.PEERU MUHAMMED RAWTHER, VAZHATHOPPIL VEEDU, M/S. SULFI TRADERS, KAZUTHURUTHY,ARYANKAVU VILLAGE KOLLAM DISTRICT.
BY ADV. SRI.PRAVEEN K. JOY
RESPONDENT/ COMPLAINANT & STATE:-
STATE OF KERALA, REP BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM, REP BY SI OF POLICE, THENMALA.
ADV. SRI. C.S. HRITHWIK, 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. 1903 of 2011 ---------------------------------------Dated this the 30th day of March, 2011.
ORDER
Petitioner who is the first accused in Crime No. 205 of 2011 of Thenmala Police Station, Kollam for an offence punishable under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act r/w Section 5(A) of the Kerala Rationing Order, seeks anticipatory bail.
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
B.A. No. 1903/2011 -:2:-
interrogation and then to have his application for bail considered by the Magistrate or the Court having jurisdiction. Accordingly, the petitioner is 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 petitioner is imperative he shall record his reasons for the arrest in the casediary as insisted in paragraph 129 of Siddharam'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 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, consider and dispose of his application for regular bail preferably on the same date on which it is filed.
B.A. No. 1903/2011
-:3:-
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. 1903/2011 -:4:-
2 issues framed by the court
Whether anticipatory bail can be granted in a case implicating the Essential Commodities Act given incomplete interrogation.
What direction can be given to facilitate subsequent bail consideration after investigation.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra and OthersRelied on¶20
(2010 (4) KLT 930)
1 provisions across 1 enactments
P.ABDUL KAREEM
STATE OF KERALA
V.RAMKUMAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
