Dismissed

Rasheeda Beevi and Others v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC10 Jun 2011Bail Appl./4316/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala refused anticipatory bail to accused Nos. 1 to 3 in a case involving IPC offences. The court directed their surrender to police for interrogation and linked the regular bail application to this step.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail refused; petitioners directed to surrender for interrogation; application for regular bail to follow after interrogation.

Rasheeda Beevi and Others Vs State of Kerala — Bail and Remand | Kerala HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR FRIDAY, THE 10TH JUNE 2011 / 20TH JYAISHTA 1933 Bail Appl..No. 4316 of 2011() ----------------------------CRIME NO.636/2011 OF KADAKKAL POLICE STATION

¶3

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS.1 TO 3

¶4

¶5

RASHEEDA BEEVI, RIYAS MANZIL, MANALUVATTAM, ETTIVA, KOTTARAKKARA, KOLLAM.

¶6

RIYAS, RIYAS MANZIL, MANALUVATTAM, ETTIVA, KOTTARAKKARA, KOLLAM.

¶7

IRSHAD, RIYAS MANZIL, MANALUVATTAM, ETTIVA, KOTTARAKKARA, KOLLAM.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.SYAM J SAM

¶9

RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT ------------------------------------

¶10

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

¶11

PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.I.V.PRAMOD

¶12

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶13

V. RAMKUMAR, J.

¶14

......................................... Bail Application No.4316 of 2011

¶15

Dated: 10.06.2011 ORDER

¶16

Petitioners, who are accused Nos.1 to 3 in Crime No.636/2011 of Kadakkal Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 308,452,341,323,324,354 and 427 read with 34 I.P.C., seek anticipatory bail.

¶17

The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application.

¶18

After evaluating the factors and parameters which are to be taken into consideration in the light of paragraph 112 of the verdict of the Apex Court in Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of

¶19

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 22.06.2011 or on 23.06.2011 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

¶20

B.A. No.4316/ 2011

¶21

-:2:-

¶22

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

¶23

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 .

¶24

This petition is disposed of as above. Dated this the 10^th day of June, 2011.

¶25

V.RAMKUMAR, JUDGE

¶26

Rasheeda Beevi and Others v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rasheeda Beevi and Others 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajan Vs State of Kerala

Vyasa Swayam Sahaya Sangam & Others Vs T.v.Valsamma

Archana Vs Sathyavathy

Narendranath Vs State of Kerala

Hakkim Vs State of Kerala

V.Radhakrishnan Nair Vs Dr.v.Geetha