Dismissed

Nimesh @ Ambili v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC1 Jul 2011Bail Appl./4659/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala dismissed two orders regarding an anticipatory bail application filed by three accused. One order granted none due to pending interrogation. Another dismissed the plea as misconceived after identifying surviving offences as bailable.

What did the court decide?

Bail application dismissed as a whole; conditions set for surrender if bailable, interrogation must occur before bail is granted.

Nimesh @ Ambili 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 1ST JULY 2011 / 10TH ASHADHA 1933 Bail Appl..No. 4659 of 2011() ----------------------------CRIME NO. 476 OF 2011 OF PARASSALA POLICE STATION

¶3

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 TO 3:

¶4

¶5

NIMESH @ AMBILI, AGED 21, S/O.SEKHARAN, ANEESH BHAVAN, ARAYOOR DESOM, ALATHARA VILAKOM, CHENKAL VILLAGE.

¶6

JAGAEEP, S/O.SUNDARAN, ALATHARAVILAKOM VEETTIL, 11/409A, ALATHARAVILAKOM, ARAYOOR DESOM, CHENKAL VILLAGE.

¶7

SUJITH, AGED 18 YEARS, S/O.RAJU, R.S.BHAVAN, AMBALATHARA VILAKOM, ARAYOOR DESOM, CHENKAL VILLAGE.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.R.T.PRADEEP SRI.V.VIJULAL

¶9

RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANTS:

¶10

¶11

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

¶12

BINDU, W/O. MANOHARAN, AGED 35, ALATHARA VILAKAM M.B. BHAVAN, ARAYOOR, CHENKAL P.O.

¶13

ADDL. R2 IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 1-7-2011 IN CRL.M.A. 4084 OF 2011

¶14

ADV. SRI.R.GOPAN FOR ADDL.R2

¶15

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

V. RAMKUMAR, J.

¶17

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

¶18

Bail Application No. 4659 of 2011

¶19

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

¶20

Dated: 1-7-2011

¶21

ORDER

¶22

Petitioners who are accused Nos. 1 to 3 in Crime No. 476 of 2011 of Parassala Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 294 (b), 341, 323, 324 and 326 read with Sec. 34 I.P.C. seek anticipatory bail.

¶23

Both sides agree that after the filing of this petition, the 3^rd accused has been arrested. If so, the application, so far as the 3^rd petitioner is concerned, has become infructous and, is, accordingly dismissed.

¶24

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 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 1 and 2. Accordingly, the petitioners 1 and 2 are directed to surrender before the investigating officer on 14-07-2011 or on 1507-2011 for the purpose of interrogation and recovery of incriminating material, if any. In case the petitioners 1 & 2 are arrested by the

¶25

B.A. No. 4659 of 2011 -:2:-

¶26

Investigating Officer before interrogation, the petitioners 1 & 2 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 1 & 2 is without arresting them, the petitioners 1 & 2 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 1 & 2 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.

¶27

In case the petitioners 1 & 2 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 1 & 2 .

¶28

This petition is disposed of as above. Dated this the Ist day of July, 2011.

¶29

V.RAMKUMAR, JUDGE

¶30

ani/

¶31

B.A. No. 4659 of 2011

¶32

-:3:-

¶33

V. RAMKUMAR, J.

¶34

*** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Bail Application No. 4659 of 2011 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Dated: 21-06-2011**

¶35

ORDER

¶36

In this petition filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C., petitioners who are accused Nos. 1 to 3 in Crime No. 476 of 2011 of Parassala Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram District, for offences punishable under Sections 294 (b), 341, 323, 324 and 326 read with Sec. 34 I.P.C. seek anticipatory bail.

¶37

B.A. No. 4659 of 2011

¶38

-:4:-

¶39

The learned Public Prosecutor, after instructions, submitted that the surviving offences are bailable offences. If so, invocation of Section 438 Cr.P.C. is misconceived.

¶40

This Petition is accordingly dismissed without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to seek regular bail either from the Magistrate or the arresting police officer concerned.

¶41

Dated this the 21^st day of June, 2011.

¶42

V. RAMKUMAR, (JUDGE)

Nimesh @ Ambili v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nimesh @ Ambili 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

Muraleekrishnan Vs State of Kerala

Leela Vs State

Vinod Vs State of Kerala

Shemeer Vs State of Kerala

P.D.Varadarajan Vs State of Kerala

Suresh Vs State of Kerala