Dismissed

Sali R.S v. State of Kerala & Another

Kerala HC17 Jun 2011Bail Appl./4132/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala denied anticipatory bail under Section 366A IPC to the petitioner, who married the victim. The court held that since the investigating officer had not interrogated the petitioner, anticipatory bail was incorrect. The petitioner was directed to surrender for interrogation before filing for regular bail.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory Bail denied. Petitioner directed to surrender for interrogation; permitted to apply for regular bail thereafter.

Sali R.S Vs State of Kerala & Another — Anticipatory Bail | Kerala HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 17TH JUNE 2011 / 27TH JYAISHTA 1933 Bail Appl..No. 4132 of 2011() ----------------------------CRIME NO.164/2011 OF THUMBA POLICE STATION

¶5

PETITIONER:

¶6

¶7

SALI R.S, AGED 22 YEARS, S/O.RAMABHADRAN, MANAKKATTIL VEEDU KULATOOR POST, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 583.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.BLAZE K.JOSE

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

¶11

STATE OF KERALA REP BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM, ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTING SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, THUMBA POLICE STATION.

¶12

P.SREEKUMAR, S/O. PARAMESWARAN ASARI, POOVATHUVILAKOM VEEFU, KULATHOOR PO THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 583.

¶13

PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.M.S.BREEZ ADV. SRI.M.SREEKUMAR FOR R-2

¶14

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

V. RAMKUMAR, J.

¶16

Bail Application No.4132 of 2011

¶17

Dated: 17.06.2011

¶18

ORDER

¶19

Petitioner, who is the accused in Crime No.164/2011 of Thumba Police Station for an offence punishable under Section 366A I.P.C., seeks anticipatory bail.

¶20

The learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the 2^nd respondent/de facto complainant admitted that the matter has been squared up and the marriage between the petitioner and the victim girl has been solemnised and that the 2^nd respondent has no subsisting grievance in the matter.

¶21

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 petitioner is directed to surrender before the investigating officer on 29.06.2011 or on 30.06.2011 for the purpose of interrogation and recovery of incriminating material, if any. In case the petitioner is arrested by the Investigating Officer before

¶22

B.A.No.4132/2011 -:2:-

¶23

interrogation, 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 on the same day or on 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, release the petitioner on bail.

¶24

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 .

¶25

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:-

¶26

1. The petitioner 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.

¶27

B.A.No.4132/2011

¶28

-:3:-

¶29

2. The petitioner shall make himself available for interrogation as and when required by the police at any time till the filing of the final report.

¶30

3. The petitioner shall not establish any contact with any of the witnesses or accused in the case.

¶31

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

¶32

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

¶33

6. The petitioner shall notify to the Court his place of residence before executing the bail bond.

¶34

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

¶35

This petition is disposed of as above.

¶36

Dated this the 17^th day of June, 2011.

¶37

V.RAMKUMAR, JUDGE

¶38

Sali R.S v. State of Kerala & Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sali R.S v. State of Kerala & Another

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

Baiju Vs State of Kerala

Shaju & Another Vs State of Kerala

Bineesh Vs State of Kerala

Muhammed Shaheer Vs State of Kerala

Vineeth J. Vs State of Kerala

Anandavally Vs State