Disposed

Sumesh Kumar v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC15 Jun 2011Bail Appl./4248/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court rejected the grant of anticipatory bail to accused persons charged under various IPC sections involving cruelty and bigamy. It directed the accused to surrender for police interrogation within two days, with the option to apply for regular bail immediately after appearance or after interrogation, subject to strict bond conditions.

What did the court decide?

Accused directed to surrender for interrogation; if interrogated, permitted to apply for regular bail. Bail not granted.

Sumesh Kumar 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

WEDNESDAY, THE 15TH JUNE 2011 / 25TH JYAISHTA 1933

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 4248 of 2011()

¶6

-----------------------CRIME NO.367/2011 OF SASTHAMCOTTAH POLICE STATION

¶7

PETITIONERS:ACCUSED

¶8

¶9

SUMESH KUMAR, AGED 25 YEARS, S/O. SOMAN M.K., MANIMANDIRAM, KUTTEMPEROOR, MANNAR VILLAGE.

¶10

SOMAN M.K., AGED 62 YEARS, MANIMANDIRAM, KUTTEMPEROOR, MANNAR VILLAGE.

¶11

OMANA, MANIMANDIRAM, KUTTEMPEROOR, MANNAR VILLAGE.

¶12

BY ADV. SRI.R.PADMAKUMAR

¶13

RESPONDENT:

¶14

¶15

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

¶16

PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.M.S.BREEZ

¶17

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

V. RAMKUMAR, J.

¶19

Bail Application No.4248 of 2011

¶20

Dated this the 15^th day of June, 2011

¶21

ORDER

¶22

Petitioners, who are accused Nos.1 to 3 in Crime No.367 of 2011 of Sasthamcottah Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 311, 313, 323, 494 & 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 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 27/06/2011 or on 28/06/2011 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 on the next day and apply for regular bail . The Magistrate or the Court on being

¶25

Bail Appln.No.4248/2011

¶26

: 2 :

¶27

satisfied that the petitioners have been interrogated by the police shall, after hearing the prosecution as well, release the petitioners on bail.

¶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

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:-

¶30

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.

¶31

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.

¶32

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.

¶33

Bail Appln.No.4248/2011

¶34

: 3 :

¶35

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

¶36

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.

¶37

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

¶38

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

¶39

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

¶40

This petition is disposed of as above.

¶41

Dated this the 15^th day of June, 2011.

¶42

V.RAMKUMAR, JUDGE

¶43

skj

¶44

True copy

¶45

P.A. to Judge

Sumesh Kumar v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sumesh Kumar 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

P.D.Vidyadharan Vs M.P.Beena

Aleyamma John Vs John Mathai

Balan Vs State of Kerala

Quality Care India Limited Vs M/S.Sagar Hospitals, Kochi & Others

Abdul Nazar Vs State of Kerala

K.v.Shaji Vs State of Kerala