The High Court of Kerala refused anticipatory bail in a case involving Sections 379, 468, and 471 IPC, directing the petitioner to surrender for interrogation first before applying for regular bail.
Petitioner directed to surrender on 04.07.2011 or 05.07.2011 for interrogation; to apply for regular bail thereafter.
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 THURSDAY, THE 23RD JUNE 2011 / 2ND ASHADHA 1933 Bail Appl..No. 4451 of 2011() ----------------------------CRIME NO.213/2011 OF MANNANCHERRY POLICE STATION
PETITIONER/ ACCUSED -------------------------
S.RASEENAMOL, AGED 28 YEARS, D/O.C.I.RAJA, PLAMOOTTIL, (MILAD MANZIL), WARD NO.18, MANNANCHERRY PANCHAYAT, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.M.REVIKRISHNAN SRI.UNNI SEBASTIAN KAPPEN
RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT ------------------------------------
STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTING THE S.H.O., MANNANCHERRY POLICE STATION, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.C.S.HRITHWIK
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
V. RAMKUMAR, J.
......................................... Bail Application No.4451 of 2011
Dated: 23.06.2011
ORDER
Petitioner, who is the accused in Crime No.213/2011 of Mannancherry Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 379,468 and 471 I.P.C., seeks anticipatory bail.
B.A. No.4451/ 2011
-:2:-
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 petitioner has been interrogated by the police shall, after hearing the prosecution as well, consider and dispose of her application for regular bail preferably on the same date on which it is filed.
In case the petitioner while surrendering before the Investigating Officer has 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 petitioner .
This petition is disposed of as above.
Dated this the 23rd day of June, 2011.
V.RAMKUMAR, JUDGE
sj
3 issues framed by the court
Whether anticipatory bail should be granted in a case involving offences punishable under Sections 379, 468 and 471 IPC where the investigating officer has not yet interrogated the petitioner.
Whether the petitioner is directed to surrender for interrogation prior to seeking regular bail.
What procedural safeguards must be observed by the investigating officer and the court during the interrogation and subsequent bail hearing.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra and OthersReferred¶16
Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre and Others (2011) 1 SCC 694, para 112 · Who else cites this
3 provisions across 1 enactments
S.Raseenamol
State of Kerala
V.Ramkumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
