Disposed

Kamarudheen v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC6 Apr 2011Bail Appl./2017/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court refused anticipatory bail in a cheating case, directing the petitioner to surrender for interrogation by 18-4-2011 or 19-4-2011. Post-interrogation, the petitioner could apply for regular bail to the Magistrate or Court, with disposal to be expedited.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to surrender for interrogation by 19-4-2011; permitted to apply for regular bail post-interrogation.

Kamarudheen Vs State of Kerala — Cheating and Forgery | Kerala HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 6TH APRIL 2011 / 16TH CHAITHRA 1933

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 2017 of 2011() ----------------------Crime No. 1986 of 2010 of E.T. North Police Station

¶6

PETITONER/ACCUSED

¶7

¶8

KAMARUDHEEN, S/O.BEERAN,AGED 39 YEARS, MAJINTE,15,THEKKEPURAM,PONANNI MUNICIPALITY, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-679586.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.S.RAJEEV

¶10

RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT

¶11

¶12

STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM (CRIME NO.1986/2010 OF E.T.NORTH POLICE STATION,ERNAKULAM DISTRICT).

¶13

Public Prosecutor Sri. C.S. Hrithwik

¶14

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/04/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

V. RAMKUMAR, J.

¶16

Bail Application No. 2017 of 2011

¶17

Dated: 6-4-2011

¶18

ORDER

¶19

Petitioner who is the 5^th accused in Crime No. 1986 of 2010 of Ernakulam Town North Police Station, Ernakulam District for offences punishable under Sections 420, 406 and 120 B read with Sec. 34 I.P.C. 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 in the light of 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 considered by the Magistrate or the Court having jurisdiction. Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to surrender before the investigating officer on 18-4-2011 or on 19-04-2011 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 case-diary as insisted in paragraph 129 of Siddharam's

¶22

Bail Application No. 2017 of 2011 -:2:-

¶23

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.

¶24

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 available after the production or appearance of the petitioner .

¶25

This petition is disposed of as above.

¶26

Dated this the 6^th day of April, 2011.

V.RAMKUMAR,

JUDGE

ani/

Bail Application No. 2017 of 2011 -:3:-

Kamarudheen v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kamarudheen 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

Muhammed Vs State of Kerala

Baiju Vs State of Kerala

Basil Vs the Station House Officer

Basheer Vs State of Kerala

Ubaidulla Vs Circle Inspector of Police

Renjith @ Kakka Renjith Vs State of Kerala