Anticipatory bail application rejected as interrogation by police pending. Accused directed to surrender for interrogation; regular bail permissible thereafter. Conditions imposed regarding reporting, non-interference, and bond security.
Petitioners directed to surrender for interrogation; regular bail applicable post-interrogation under bond conditions.
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
WEDNESDAY, THE 15TH JUNE 2011 / 25TH JYAISHTA 1933
Bail Appl..No. 4424 of 2011()
CRIME NO. 445/2011 of THALASSERI POLICE STATION
PETITIONERS/ ACCUSED:
BY ADV. SRI.S.RAJEEV
RESPONDENT & STATE:-
STATE OF KERALA
REP BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM.
ADV. SRI. M.S. BREEZE, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
V. RAMKUMAR, J.
.........................................
B.A. No.4424 of 2011
.......................................... Dated this the 15th day of June, 2011.
ORDER
Petitioners who are accused Nos. 4 and 1 to 3 in Crime No. 445 of 2011 of Thalasseri Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 365, 367, 506 (ii) and 149 I.P.C., seek anticipatory bail.
27.06.2011 or on 28.06.2011 for the purpose of interrogation and recovery of incriminating material, if any.
B.A.No. 4424/2011
-:2:-
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 satisfied that the petitioners have been interrogated by the police shall, after hearing the prosecution as well, release the petitioners on bail.
B.A.No. 4424/2011
-:3:-
was not available after the production or appearance of the petitioners .
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.
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.
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.
4. The petitioners shall not establish any contact with any of the witnesses or accused in the case.
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.
B.A.No. 4424/2011
-:4:-
6. The petitioners shall not commit any offence while on bail.
7. The petitioners shall notify to the Court their place of residence before executing the bail bond.
8. If the petitioners commit breach of any of the above conditions, the bail granted to them shall be liable to be cancelled.
This petition is disposed of as above.
Dated this the 15th day of June, 2011.
sd/- V.RAMKUMAR, JUDGE.
rv
//True Copy//
P.A to Judge.
3 issues framed by the court
Whether anticipatory bail should be granted without allowing the investigating officer to interrogate the accused.
Whether regular bail can be applied for after interrogation is completed.
Whether conditions can be imposed for reporting, non-interference with witnesses, and availability for further interrogation.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra and OthersRelied on¶28
Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra and Others (2011) 1 SCC 694 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Abdul Nazar
Shihab
Shefeeq
Shanavas
State of Kerala
V. RAMKUMAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
