The High Court of Kerala denied anticipatory bail to an accused facing charges of criminal breach of trust, cheating, and forgery. The court held interrogation by the investigating officer must precede bail and directed surrender for interrogation.
Petitioner directed to surrender before investigating officer on 17 or 18 May 2011 for 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
FRIDAY, THE 6TH MAY 2011 / 16TH VAISAKHA 1933
Bail Appl..No. 3275 of 2011 -------------------------------------[CRIME NO.1004/2010 OF VADAKKENCHERRY POLICE STATION, PALAKKAD] ........................
APPLICANT/ACCUSED NO.2:
-------------------------------------------
ASHA PAULSON,AGED 30 YEARS,W/O.PAULSON, KANJIRATHILCHALIL,ALUVASSERY,POTHUNDI, NEMMARA,PALAKKAD DISTRICT.
BY SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU, SENIOR ADVOCATE, ADV. SRI. JOHNSON VARIKKAPPALLIL.
RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:
--------------------------------------------
STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTING THE S.I.OF POLICE,VADAKKENCHERRY POLICE STATION.
BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. M.S. BREEZ.
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/05/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
prv.
V. RAMKUMAR, J.
.........................................
Bail Application No. 3275 of 2011
..........................................
Dated: 6-5-2011
ORDER
Petitioner who is the second accused in accused in Crime No. 1004 of 2010 of Wadakkancherry Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 408, 420, 465 and 471 I.P.C., seeks anticipatory bail.
B.A. No. 3275 of 2011 -:2:-
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.
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 .
This petition is disposed of as above. Dated this the 6th day of May, 2011.
V.RAMKUMAR, JUDGE
ani/
B.A. No. 3275 of 2011 -:3:-
2 issues framed by the court
Whether anticipatory bail ought to be granted to the accused in a case involving offences under Sections 408, 420, 465 and 471 IPC.
Whether the investigating officer has had sufficient opportunity to interrogate the petitioner before granting anticipatory bail.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra and OthersReferred¶24
Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra and Others - (2011) 1 SCC 694 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
ASHA PAULSON
STATE OF KERALA
V. RAMKUMAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
