Dismissed

G. Chandrasekharan Pillai v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC28 Jun 2011Bail Appl./4146/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court denied anticipatory bail to an accused under Sections 447, 323, and 324 r/w Section 34 IPC. The court held that interrogating the petitioner was a prerequisite. The petitioner was directed to surrender to the investigating officer for interrogation within a specified timeframe.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to surrender for interrogation on 13.07.2011 or 14.07.2011; regular bail application to be filed post-interrogation.

G. Chandrasekharan Pillai 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

TUESDAY, THE 28TH JUNE 2011 / 7TH ASHADHA 1933

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 4146 of 2011() ----------------------------CRIME NO. 481/2011 of KUNNIKODE POLICE STATION, KOLLAM

¶6

PETITIONER/ACCUSED (A3):-

¶7

¶8

G.CHANDRASEKHARAN PILLAI, S/O.LATE GOVINDHAN NAIR, PRASAD BHAVAN, MANJAKKALA MURI, THALAVOOR VILLAGE, PATHANAPURAM TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.S.RAJEEV

¶10

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:-

¶11

¶12

STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM (CRIME NO.481/2011 OF KUNNIKODE POLICE STATION, KOLLAM DISTRICT).

¶13

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

¶14

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

V. RAMKUMAR, J.

¶16

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

¶17

Bail Application No. 4146 of 2011

¶18

.......................................... Dated this the 28^th day of June, 2011.

¶19

ORDER

¶20

Petitioner who is the 3^rd accused in Crime No. 481 of 2011 of Kunnikode Police Station, Kollam for offences punishable under Sections 447, 323 and 324 r/w Section 34 I.P.C., seeks anticipatory bail.

¶21

The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application.

¶22

After evaluating the factors and parameters which are

¶23

to be taken into consideration in the light of paragraph 112 of the verdict of the Apex Court in Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v.

¶24

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 petitioner. Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to surrender before the investigating officer on 13.07.2011 or on 14.07.2011 for the purpose of interrogation and recovery of incriminating material, if any. In case the petitioner is arrested by the Investigating Officer before 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

¶25

B.A. No. 4146/2011 -:2:-

¶26

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 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, consider and dispose of his application for regular bail preferably on the same date on which it is filed.

¶27

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.

¶28

This petition is disposed of as above. Dated this the 28^th day of June, 2011.

¶29

sd/- V.RAMKUMAR, JUDGE.

//True Copy//

P.A to Judge.

B.A. No. 4146/2011 -:3:-