The Kerala High Court dismissed an application for anticipatory bail. The judge directed the petitioner to surrender for interrogation before the investigating officer, noting that bail could not be granted promptly due to the investigation stage.
Petitioner directed to surrender for interrogation; regular bail may be applied for after interrogation.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR
MONDAY, THE 20TH JUNE 2011 / 30TH JYAISHTA 1933 Bail Appl..No. 4278 of 2011() --------------------------------
CRIME NO. 745/2011 of IRINJALAKUDA POLICE STATION
PETITIONER/ACCUSED:-
ROOPAK, AGED 22, S/O.SURESH, KUTTIYIL HOUSE, NADAVARAMBU P.O, THRISSUR DISTRICT.
BY ADV. DR.V.N.SANKARJEE
RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:-
STATE OF KERALA, THROUGH THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, IRINJALAKUDA POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.
ADV. SRI. M.S. BREEZE, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
V. RAMKUMAR, J.
.........................................
B.A. No. 4278 of 2011
.......................................... Dated this the 20th day of June, 2011.
ORDER
Petitioner who is the first accused in Crime No. 745 of 2011 of Irinjalakkuda Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 324 and 308 r/w Section 149 I.P.C., seeks anticipatory bail.
29.06.2011 or on 30.06.2011 for the purpose of interrogation and recovery of incriminating material, if any.
B.A.No. 4278/2011
-:2:-
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 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.
B.A.No. 4278/2011
-:3:-
after the production or appearance of the petitioner.
1. The petitioner shall report before the Investigating Officer between 9 a.m. and 11 a.m. on all Wednesdays till the filing of the final report.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. The petitioner shall not establish any contact with any of the witnesses or accused in the case.
5. 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.
6. The petitioner shall not commit any offence while on bail .
B.A.No. 4278/2011
-:4:-
7. The petitioner shall notify to the Court his place of residence before executing the bail bond.
8. If the petitioner commits breach of any of the above conditions, the bail granted to him shall be liable to be cancelled.
This petition is disposed of as above.
Dated this the 20th day of June, 2011.
sd/- V.RAMKUMAR, JUDGE.
rv
//True Copy//
P.A to Judge.
2 issues framed by the court
Whether anticipatory bail should be granted in a cognizable offence involving a riot.
Whether the balance of convenience and prima facie case favours granting anticipatory bail.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra and OthersReferred¶22
Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra and Others (2011) 1 SCC 694 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
ROOPAK
STATE OF KERALA
V. RAMKUMAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
