Partly allowed

Roy Kutty v. State of Kerala and Another

Kerala HC1 Feb 2011Bail Appl./332/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application for offences under various IPC sections, the court declined anticipatory bail as the accused had not surrendered for interrogation. However, the petitioner was directed to surrender by specified dates for interrogation. If arrested, the court would permit a regular bail application post-interrogation.

What did the court decide?

Order permitting surrender on specified dates for interrogation, to be followed by a regular bail application; no immediate bail granted.

Roy Kutty Vs State of Kerala and Another — Bail and Remand | Kerala HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 1ST FEBRUARY 2011 / 12TH MAGHA 1932

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 332 of 2011()

¶6

--------------------------------

¶7

(CRIME NO.31/2011 OF EROOR POLICE STATION, KOLLAM)

¶8

PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.1

¶9

----------------------------------

¶10

ROY KUTTY, S/O.K.KUTTY, AGED 33 YEARS, SOPANAM, BHARATHIPURAM P.O., ANCHAL, KOLLAM.

¶11

BY ADV. SRI.M.K.CHANDRAMOHANDAS

¶12

RESPONDENT(S): STATE

¶13

-----------------------------

¶14

1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM - 682 031.

¶15

2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, EROOR POLICE STATION, EROOR P.O., EROOR, KOLLAM, PIN-691 312.

¶16

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.M.S.BREEZE

¶17

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

svs

¶19

V.RAMKUMAR, J.

¶20

----------------------------------------------Bail Application No.332 of 2011

¶21

Dated this the 1^st day of February, 2011

¶22

ORDER

¶23

Petitioner, who is accused No.1 in Crime No.31 of 2011 of Eroor Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 143, 144, 323, 324, 294(b), 342, 506(2) & 149 I.P.C., seeks anticipatory bail.

¶24

The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the

¶25

application.

¶26

After evaluating the factors and parameters which are to be taken into consideration in the light of paragraph 122 of the verdict dated 2-12-2010 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

¶27

Bail.Appln.No.332/2011

¶28

-:2:-

¶29

allowed by the Magistrate or the Court having jurisdiction. Accordingly, the petitioner shall surrender before the investigating officer on 14/02/2011 or on 16/02/2011 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 Satlingappa Mhetre'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 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, release the petitioner on bail.

¶30

In case the accused while surrendering before the Investigating Officer has deprived the investigating officer sufficient time for interrogation, the officer shall complete the

¶31

Bail.Appln.No.332/2011

¶32

-:3:-

¶33

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 accused.

¶34

The release of the petitioner shall be on the petitioner executing a bond for `15,000/- (Rupees fifteen thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court concerned and subject to the following conditions:-

¶35

1. The petitioner shall report before the Investigating Officer between 9 a.m. and 11 a.m. on all Wednesdays.

¶36

2. The petitioner shall make himself available for interrogation including custodial interrogation as and when required by the Investigating Officer.

¶37

3. The petitioner shall not influence or intimidate the prosecution witnesses nor shall he attempt to tamper with the evidence for the prosecution.

¶38

Bail.Appln.No.332/2011

¶39

-:4:-

¶40

4. The petitioner shall not commit any offence while on bail.

¶41

5. If the petitioner commits breach of any of the above conditions, the bail granted to him shall be liable to be cancelled.

¶42

This petition is disposed of as above.