Dismissed

Balan v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC14 Jun 2011Bail Appl./4442/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court rejected the grant of anticipatory bail in a case involving affray and assault. It directed the accused to surrender forthwith for police interrogation. Regular bail could be considered only after the police had completed interrogation and submitted a report.

What did the court decide?

Seeking to direct the accused to surrender for interrogation within two days; regular bail to be considered only after completion of police interrogation.

Balan Vs State of Kerala — Quashing and FIR | Kerala HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 14TH JUNE 2011 / 24TH JYAISHTA 1933

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 4442 of 2011()

¶6

¶7

CRIME NO. 83/2011 of CHERUTHURUTHY POLICE STATION, THRISSUR

¶8

APPLICANTS/ACCUSED NOS. 3-6:-

¶9

¶10

BALAN, S/O.KUNJUNNY, MUNDEMADATHIL HOUSE VARAVOOR VILLAGE, DESOM, THALAPPILLY TALUK.

¶11

DINESH, S/O.THARU, MANAKKAL KALTHIL HOUSE, VARAVOOR VILLAGE DESOM, THALAPPILLY TALUK.

¶12

KUMAR, S/O.MUTHU, ERAKKARA HOUSE, VARAVOOR VILLAGE DESOM, THALAPPILLY TALUK.

¶13

MANOJ, S/O.THARU, KIZHAKKUTPADI HOUSE, VARAVOOR VILLAGE DESOM, THALAPPILLY TALUK.

¶14

BY ADV. SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.M.REVIKRISHNAN

¶15

SRI.UNNI SEBASTIAN KAPPEN

¶16

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:-

¶17

¶18

STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTING THE SI OF POLICE, CHERUTHURUTHY POLICE STATION, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶19

ADV. SRI. M.S. BREEZE, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶20

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

V. RAMKUMAR, J.

¶22

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

¶23

Bail Application No. 4442 of 2011

¶24

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

¶25

Dated this the 14^th day of June, 2011.

¶26

ORDER

¶27

Petitioners who are accused Nos. 3 to 6 in Crime No. 83 of 2011 of Cheruthuruthy Police Station, Thrissur for offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 323, 324 and 326 r/w Section 149 I.P.C., seek anticipatory bail.

¶28

The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application.

¶29

After evaluating the factors and parameters which are

¶30

to be taken into consideration in the light of paragraph 112 of the verdict of the Apex Court in Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v.

¶31

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 24.06.2011 or on 25.06.2011 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

¶32

B.A. No. 4442/2011 -:2:-

¶33

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 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.

¶34

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 .

¶35

This petition is disposed of as above. Dated this the 14^th day of June, 2011.

¶36

sd/- V.RAMKUMAR, JUDGE

//True Copy//

P.A to Judge.

B.A. No. 4442/2011 -:3:-