Disposed

Muhammed Ashraf and 2 Others v. the Sub Inspector of Police and Others

Kerala HC29 Mar 2011Bail Appl./2051/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court rejected the grant of anticipatory bail as the Investigating Officer had not interrogated the petitioners. Instead, the Court directed the petitioners to surrender for interrogation on specific dates, after which they could file applications for regular bail to be considered expeditiously.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners directed to surrender for interrogation by 11/04/2011 or 12/04/2011; thereafter permitted to apply for regular bail.

Muhammed Ashraf and 2 Others Vs the Sub Inspector of… — 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

TUESDAY, THE 29TH MARCH 2011 / 8TH CHAITHRA 1933

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 2051 of 2011()

¶6

----------------------------CRIME NO.49/2011 OF CHELAKKARA POLICE STATION

¶7

PETITIONERS:ACCUSED

¶8

¶9

MUHAMMED ASHRAF, AGED 37 YEARS, S/O.SAIDALI, PUTHENPEEDIKKAL HOUSE, CHELAKKODE DESOM, CHELAKKARA, THALAPPILLY TALUK, THRISSUR DIST.

¶10

PRAMOD KUMAR, AGED 33 YEARS, S/O. DHANALAKSHMI,PULIKKAL HOUSE, PULAKODE.P.O., CHELAKKARA, THRISSUR DIST.

¶11

SASEENDRAN, AGED 46 YEARS, S/O. RAMAN, ASARI HOUSE,PULAKODE.P.O., CHELAKKARA, THRISSUR DIST.

¶12

BY ADV. SRI.M.R.DHANIL

¶13

RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT/STATE

¶14

¶15

THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CHELLAKARA POLICE STATION,THRISSUR DIST, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, COCHIN-682031.

¶16

THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CHELAKKARA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, COCHIN-31.

¶17

STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM

¶18

PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.C.S.HRITHWIK

¶19

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

V.RAMKUMAR, J.

¶21

Bail Application No.2051 of 2011

¶22

Dated this the 29^th day of March, 2011

¶23

ORDER

¶24

Petitioners, who are accused Nos.5, 6 & 7 in Crime No.49 of 2011 of Chelakkara Police Station for an offence punishable under Section 420 read with Section 34 I.P.C., seek anticipatory bail.

¶25

The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the

¶26

application.

¶27

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 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 Magistrate or the Court having jurisdiction. Accordingly, the petitioners are directed to surrender before the investigating

¶28

B.A.No.2051/2011

¶29

-:2:-

¶30

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.

¶31

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

¶32

B.A.No.2051/2011

¶33

-:3:-

¶34

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.

¶35

This petition is disposed of as above.

¶36

Dated this the 29^th day of March, 2011.

¶37

V.RAMKUMAR, JUDGE

¶38

skj

Muhammed Ashraf and 2 Others v. the Sub Inspector of Police and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Muhammed Ashraf and 2 Others v. the Sub Inspector of Police and Others

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

Omana Varghese Vs State of Kerala

Subhash Mandal Vs State of Kerala

Raju @ Rajan Poulose Vs Sub Inspector of Police,Mulathuruthy

Anilkumar Vs State of Kerala

Rajesh Kumar.T.K. Vs Sub Inspector of Police, Farookh Police

Rajeev Vs State of Kerala