Dismissed

E.Munirathanam v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC1 Jun 2011Bail Appl./3903/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court refused anticipatory bail to accused persons charged with offences under Sections 420, 465, 468, 471, and 34 IPC. The court directed them to surrender for police interrogation within a specified timeframe and to seek regular bail thereafter.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail denied; Accused directed to surrender for interrogation on 13.06.2011 or 14.06.2011.

E.Munirathanam 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 WEDNESDAY, THE 1ST JUNE 2011 / 11TH JYAISHTA 1933

¶4

Bail Appl..No. 3903 of 2011()

¶5

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

¶6

(CRIME NO.209/2009 OF BALUSSERY POLICE STATION, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT)

¶7

PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.2 TO 4

¶8

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

¶9

1. E.MUNIRATHANAM, NO.2/165, AVADI ROAD, SENNEERKUPPAM, CHENNAI, TAMILNADU.

¶10

2. E.SEKAR, NO.2/165, AVADI ROAD, SENNEERKUPPAM, CHENNAI, TAMILNADU.

¶11

3. E.BALAN, NO.7, 4TH CROSS STREET, HADCO NAGAR, KATTUPPAKKAM, CHENNAI, TAMILNADU.

¶12

BY ADV. SRI.K.B.ARUNKUMAR

¶13

RESPONDENT:

¶14

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

¶15

STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, BALUSSERY POLICE STATION, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN-682 017.

¶16

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.C.S.HRITHWIK

¶17

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

¶19

V. RAMKUMAR, J.

¶20

......................................... Bail Application No.3903 of 2011

¶21

Dated: 01.06.2011 ORDER

¶22

Petitioners, who are accused Nos.2 to 4 in Crime No.209/2009 of Balussery Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 420,465,468 and 471 read with 34 I.P.C., seek anticipatory bail.

¶23

The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application.

¶24

After evaluating the factors and parameters which are to be taken into consideration in the light of paragraph 112 of the verdict of the Apex Court in Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra and Others - (2011) 1 SCC 694 , 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. Accordingly, the petitioners are directed to surrender before the investigating officer on 13.06.2011 or on 14.06.2011 for the purpose of interrogation and recovery of incriminating material, if any. In case the petitioners are arrested by the Investigating Officer before interrogation, 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

¶25

B.A. No.3903/2011

¶26

-:2:-

¶27

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.

¶28

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 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 .

¶29

This petition is disposed of as above. Dated this the 1^st day of June, 2011.

¶30

V.RAMKUMAR, JUDGE

¶31

E.Munirathanam v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

E.Munirathanam 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

Joy Varghese Vs State of Kerala

Al Ameen Vs State of Kerala

Mallatti Kokkambeth Kunhamina and Ors. Vs Elembilatt Parammal Mariyumma & Ors.

Nissam Vs State of Kerala

Viju.E.B Vs a.P.M.Mohammed Hanish

State of Kerala Vs Elizabeth Jose