Partly allowed

Anilkumar v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC29 Mar 2011Bail Appl./2124/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala declined to grant anticipatory bail immediately due to lack of police interrogation. Instead, it directed the accused to surrender on specified dates for questioning. Post-interrogation, the accused must apply for regular bail before the magistrate or court.

What did the court decide?

Order to surrender for interrogation on specified dates; leave to apply for regular bail after interrogation.

Anilkumar Vs State of Kerala — Anticipatory Bail | 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. 2124 of 2011() ---------------------------------

¶6

CRIME NO. 428/CR/SI/2004 of CBCID., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

¶7

PETITIONER/ACCUSED:-

¶8

¶9

ANILKUMAR,AGED 39 YEARS,S/O.VASUDEVAN NAIR,BEENA BHAVAN,HOUSE NO.220,WARD NO.6, PULLAMPARA VILLAGE,NEDUMANGAD,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.T.A.UNNIKRISHNAN

¶11

SRI. K. SATHEESHKUMAR SRI. K.S PRAVEEN

¶12

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:-

¶13

¶14

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

¶15

ADV. SRI. M.S. BREEZE, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶16

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

¶17

V. RAMKUMAR, J.

¶18

Bail Application No. 2124 of 2011 ---------------------------------------Dated this the 29^th day of March, 2011.

¶19

ORDER

¶20

Petitioner who is the first accused in Crime No. 428/CR/SI/2004 of CBCID, Thiruvananthapuram for offences punishable under Sections 468 and 471 r/w Section 34 I.P.C., seeks anticipatory bail.

¶21

The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the

¶22

application.

¶23

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

¶24

Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra and Others (2010 (4) KLT

¶25

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

¶26

B.A. No. 2124/2011

¶27

-:2:-

¶28

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.

¶29

B.A. No. 2124/2011

¶30

-:3:-

¶31

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 .

¶32

This petition is disposed of as above. Dated this the 29^th day of March, 2011.

¶33

sd/- V.RAMKUMAR, JUDGE.

//True Copy//

P.A to Judge.

B.A. No. 2124/2011 -:4:-

Anilkumar v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anilkumar 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

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

Muhammed Ashraf and 2 Others Vs the Sub Inspector of Police and Others

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

Rajeev Vs State of Kerala