Partly allowed

Hazanarukutty and Others v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC3 Jun 2011Bail Appl./4116/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

, the court dismissed the bail application for non-accused petitioners. For accused petitioners, anticipatory bail was denied as interrogation was pending. A directive was issued for their surrender by June 15, 2011, for interrogation and subsequent regular bail consideration.

What did the court decide?

Directed petitioners 1,2,5,8,9 to surrender by 14.06.2011 for interrogation and apply for regular bail thereafter.

Hazanarukutty and Others Vs State of Kerala — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Kerala HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 3RD JUNE 2011 / 13TH JYAISHTA 1933

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 4116 of 2011()

¶6

CRIME NO. 745/2011 of KOTTARAKKARA POLICE STATION

¶7

PETITIONERS (1 TO 9):-

¶8

HASANARUKUTTY, LATHEEF MANZIL, PERUMKULAM, KOTTARAKKARA, KOLLAM.

¶9

ARIFA BEEVI, LATHEEF MANZIL, PERUMKULAM, KOTTARAKKARA, KOLLAM.

¶10

SHAHIDA BEEVI, LATHEEF MANZIL, PERUMKULAM, KOTTARAKKARA, KOLLAM.

¶11

LATHEEF, LATHEEF MANZIL, PERUMKULAM, KOTTARAKKARA, KOLLAM.

¶12

SAJEEDA, LATHEEF MANZIL, PERUMKULAM, KOTTARAKKARA, KOLLAM.

¶13

SAMUBA, KATHADI VILA VEEDU, MANNADI, ENATHU, ADOOR.

¶14

SHYNI, KOIKKAMELETHIL, PATTAZHI VADAKKEKKARA, PATHANAPURAM.

¶15

SHEREEF, LATHEEF MANZIL, PERUMKULAM, KOTTARAKKARA, KOLLAM.

¶16

SAJEEV, LATHEEF MANZIL, PERUMKULAM, KOTTARAKKARA, KOLLAM.

¶17

BY ADV. SRI.SYAM J SAM

¶18

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:-

¶19

THE RURAL S.P, KOTTARAKKARA, KOLLAM.

¶20

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

¶21

ADV. SRI. M.R. VENUGOPAL, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶22

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶23

V. RAMKUMAR, J.

¶24

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

¶25

Bail Application No. 4116 of 2011

¶26

.......................................... Dated this the 3^rd day of June, 2011.

¶27

ORDER

¶28

Petitioners who are accused Nos.1 to 9 in Crime No. 745 of 2011 of Kottarakkara Police Station for an offence punishable under Section 306 r/w Section 34 I.P.C., seek anticipatory bail.

¶29

The learned Public Prosecutor on instructions submitted that petitioners 1, 2, 5, 8 and 9 are accused Nos. 3, 4, 6, 1 and 2 respectively and that petitioners 3, 4, 6 and 7 are not accused in the case. If so, the apprehension of arrest and harassment entertained by petitioners 3, 4, 6 and 7 is unfounded and this petition so far as it relates to the said petitioners is dismissed.

¶30

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, petitioners 1, 2, 5, 8 and 9 (A3, A4, A6, A1 and A2) are directed to surrender before the investigating officer on 14.06.2011 or on 15.06.2011 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

¶31

B.A. No. 4116/2011

¶32

-:2:-

¶33

before the Magistrate or the Court concerned and permitted to file an application for regular bail. In case the interrogation of petitioners 1, 2, 5, 8 and 9 is without arresting them, the said 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 being satisfied that petitioners 1, 2, 5, 8 and 9 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.

¶34

In case petitioners 1, 2, 5, 8 and 9 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 .

¶35

This petition is disposed of as above. Dated this the 3^rd day of June, 2011.

¶36

sd/- V.RAMKUMAR, JUDGE.

//True Copy//

P.A to Judge.

B.A. No. 4116/2011 -:3:-

Hazanarukutty and Others v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hazanarukutty and Others 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

Abdu @ Abdulsamad K.A. Vs State of Kerala

Vijesh Vs State of Kerala

State of Kerala Vs K.v.Gopinathan Nair

Tomy Antony and Another Vs James Varghese

Annie Mendez Vs Don Bosco Mendez

K.S.E Board Vs Sivarama Pillai