Disposed

Bineesh v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC16 Jun 2011Bail Appl./4114/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Single Judge granted interim relief by directing the accused to surrender for police interrogation instead of granting anticipatory bail. The petitioners must report, and bail conditions are imposed upon subsequent regular bail application if satisfied.

What did the court decide?

Directing petitioners to surrender for interrogation by 27.06.2011 or 28.06.2011; regular bail applicability contingent on interrogation completion.

Bineesh Vs State of Kerala — 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

THURSDAY, THE 16TH JUNE 2011 / 26TH JYAISHTA 1933

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 4114 of 2011()

¶6

¶7

CRIME NO. 813/2011 of KOCHI CUSBA POLICE STATION

¶8

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED:-

¶9

¶10

BINEESH, S/O.SADANANDAN, AGED 28 YEARS, MUTHOTTU HOUSE, KOYA BAZAR, KUMBALANGHI, KOCHI-682 007.

¶11

KIRAN, AGED 23 YEARS, S/O.CHANDRAN, MUTHOTTU HOUSE, KOYA BAZAR, KUMBALANGHI, KOCHI-682 007.

¶12

SHAJU, AGED 30 YEARS, S/O.SHAMMU, MUTHOTTU HOUSE, KOYA BAZAR, KUMBALANGHI, KOCHI-682 007.

BY ADV. SRI.S.RAJEEV

RESPONDENT & STATE:-

STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM (CRIME NO.813/2011 OF KOCHI CUSBA POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶17

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

¶18

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

V. RAMKUMAR, J.

¶20

.........................................

¶21

B.A. No. 4114 of 2011

¶22

.......................................... Dated this the 16^th day of June, 2011.

¶23

ORDER

¶24

Petitioners who are accused Nos. 8, 4 and 5 in Crime No. 813 of 2011 of Kochi Cusba Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 324, 326 and 308 read with Section 149 I.P.C., seek anticipatory bail.

¶25

The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application.

¶26

After evaluating the factors and parameters which are to be taken into consideration under 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

¶27

27.06.2011 or on 28.06.2011 for the purpose of interrogation and recovery of incriminating material, if any.

¶28

B.A.No. 4114/2011

¶29

-:2:-

¶30

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

¶31

same day or on 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, release the petitioners on bail.

¶32

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

¶33

B.A.No. 4114/2011

¶34

-:3:-

¶35

was not available after the production or appearance of the petitioners .

¶36

The release of the petitioners shall be on each of the petitioners 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:-

¶37

1. The petitioners shall report before the Investigating Officer between 9 a.m. and 11 a.m. on all Wednesdays till the filing of the final report.

¶38

2. The petitioners shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person who is acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him or her from disclosing any information to the Court or to the police or to any other person in authority.

¶39

3. The petitioners shall make themselves available for interrogation as and when required by the police at any time till the filing of the final report.

¶40

4. The petitioners shall not establish any contact with any of the witnesses or accused in the case.

¶41

5. The petitioners shall not influence or intimidate the prosecution witnesses or the victims nor shall they attempt to tamper with the evidence for the prosecution.

¶42

B.A.No. 4114/2011

¶43

-:4:-

¶44

6. The petitioners shall not commit any offence while on bail.

¶45

7. The petitioners shall notify to the Court their place of residence before executing the bail bond.

¶46

8. If the petitioners commit breach of any of the above conditions, the bail granted to them shall be liable to be cancelled.

¶47

This petition is disposed of as above.

¶48

Dated this the 16^th day of June, 2011.

¶49

sd/- V.RAMKUMAR, JUDGE.

¶50

¶51

//True Copy//

¶52

P.A to Judge.

Bineesh v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bineesh 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Prasad Vs State of Kerala

Manikuttan Vs the S.I of Police,Chittar

Baiju @ Thomas Vs State of Kerala

Baiju Vs State of Kerala

Shaju & Another Vs State of Kerala

Jaya Ganesh Vs State of Kerala