Partly allowed

James v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC22 Jun 2011Bail Appl./4285/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Kerala High Court rejected the grant of anticipatory bail to four accused persons in a charge related to unlawful assembly and mischief. Instead, the court directed surrender for police interrogation before producing bail applications before the magistrate.

What did the court decide?

Accused directed to surrender for interrogation by 4th July 2011; thereafter, regular bail granted subject to bond and conditions.

James 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 22ND JUNE 2011 / 1ST ASHADHA 1933

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 4285 of 2011()

¶6

----------------------------CRIME NO. 202 OF 2011 OF PUTHENCRUZ POLICE STATION

¶7

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 TO 4

¶8

¶9

JAMES, S/O.POULOSE, ODOLIL HOUSE, KOLENCHERRY P.O.

¶10

THAMPI JOSEPH, S/O.T.D.JOSEPH, THENUNGAL HOUSE, PANCOD P.O

¶11

SUNNY @ PAUL MATHAI, VALAYIL HOUSE, KOLENCHERRY P.O.

¶12

T.P.PETER, S/O.POULOSE, THAMACHALIL HOUSE, KOLENCHERRY P.O.

¶13

BY ADV. SRI.S.SREEKUMAR SRI.P.MARTIN JOSE SRI.M.A.MOHAMMED SIRAJ SRI.P.PRIJITH

¶14

RESPONDENT(S):

¶15

¶16

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

¶17

PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. C.S. HRITHWIK

¶18

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

V. RAMKUMAR, J.

¶20

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

¶21

Bail Application No. 4285 of 2011

¶22

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

¶23

Dated: 22-06-2011

¶24

ORDER

¶25

Petitioners who are accused Nos. 1 to 4 in Crime No. 202 of 2011 of Puthencruz Police Station, Ernakulam District for offences punishable under Sections 143, 144, 147, 148, 308, 332, 427 and 149 I.P.C. and Sec. 3 (1) of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, seek anticipatory bail.

¶26

The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application. 3. 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 3-07-2011 or on 4-07-2011 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

¶27

B.A.No. 4285 of 2011

¶28

-:2:-

¶29

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

¶30

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 .

¶31

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:-

¶32

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.

¶33

2. The petitioners shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person who is

¶34

B.A.No. 4285 of 2011

¶35

-:3:-

¶36

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.

¶37

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.

¶38

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

¶39

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.

¶40

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

¶41

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

¶42

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

¶43

This petition is disposed of as above.

¶44

Dated this the 22^nd day of June, 2011.

¶45

V.RAMKUMAR, JUDGE

¶46

ani/

¶47

B.A.No. 4285 of 2011 -:4:-

James v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

James 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

Kenny Vs State of Kerala

Santhosh K.M Vs State of Kerala

Sojan Vs State of Kerala

Aneesh Appukuttan & Others Vs Circle Inspector of Police

Shafi Vs State of Kerala

Sleeba Vs State of Kerala