Dismissed

Radhakrishnan v. S.I.

Kerala HC21 Jun 2011Bail Appl./4799/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court rejected a plea for anticipatory bail in a criminal case involving IPC offences. The court directed the petitioner to surrender for interrogation by the investigating officer. Regular bail application consideration was ordered only after interrogation and hearing of the prosecution.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail denied; petitioner directed to surrender for interrogation; conditions laid for subsequent regular bail application.

Radhakrishnan Vs S.I. — Anticipatory Bail | Kerala HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 21ST JUNE 2011 / 31ST JYAISHTA 1933 Bail Appl..No. 4799 of 2011() ----------------------------CRIME NO.899/2011 OF CHANGANASSERY POLICE STATION

¶5

PETITIONER/3RD ACCUSED

¶6

¶7

DR. P.R.RADHAKRISHNAN, S/O. RAMACHANDRAN, THARAVADU MANIVEEDU, CHALAKUDY P.O., OWNER OF MATHA ENGINEERING COLLEGE, NORTH PARAVOOR.

¶8

BY ADV. SMT.P.V.KOCHUTHRESIA SMT.M.P.MARY

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

¶11

THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CHENGANASSERY POLICE STATION.

¶12

SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, NADAKAVU POLICE STATION, KOZHIKODE.

¶13

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

¶14

PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.C.S.HRITHWIK

¶15

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

V. RAMKUMAR, J.

¶17

......................................... Bail Application No.4799 of 2011

¶18

Dated: 21.06.2011

¶19

ORDER

¶20

Petitioner, who is the 3^rd accused in Crime No.899/2011 of Changanassery Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 406,420 and 34 I.P.C., seeks anticipatory bail.

¶21

The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application. 3. 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 petitioner. Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to surrender before the investigating officer on 01.07.2011 or on 02.07.2011 for the purpose of interrogation and recovery of incriminating material, if any. In case the petitioner is arrested by the Investigating Officer before interrogation, the petitioner 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 petitioner is without arresting him, the petitioner shall thereafter appear before the Magistrate or the Court concerned on the same day or the next

¶22

B.A. No.4799/ 2011

¶23

-:2:-

¶24

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 his application for regular bail preferably on the same date on which it is filed.

¶25

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 .

¶26

This petition is disposed of as above.

¶27

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

¶28

V.RAMKUMAR, JUDGE

¶29

Radhakrishnan v. S.I.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Radhakrishnan v. S.I.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K.K.Vijayan Vs Sub Inspector of Police

The K.S.E.B Vs Joseph Abraham

Sasi Vs Hillvalley Corporation

Bineesh P.V. Vs Sub Inspector of Police and Another

P.Peravakkutty Vs the Vijaya Bank

James Thomas Edayanjilil Vs the Regional Passport Officer