Dismissed

Augustine Sijo and Another v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC29 Jun 2011Bail Appl./4817/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single-judge Criminal Bench heard an anticipatory bail application filed by accused persons in a case involving offences under Sections 323 and 326 r/w Section 34 IPC. The court held that anticipatory bail could not be granted since the investigating officer had not examined the petitioners. The petitioners were directed to surrender on specified dates for interrogation. If arrested, they wer

What did the court decide?

Petitioners were directed to surrender for interrogation on 13.07.2011 or 14.07.2011; if arrested, they may apply for regular bail.

Augustine Sijo and Another Vs State of Kerala — Anticipatory Bail | Kerala HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 29TH JUNE 2011 / 8TH ASHADHA 1933

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 4817 of 2011()

¶6

¶7

CRIME NO. 383/2011 of VARAPUZHA POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM.

¶8

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS. 1 & 2:-

¶9

¶10

AUGUSTINE SIJO, AGED 21 YEARS, S/O.JOSSY, NADUVILAPARAMBU, CHERANALLOOR, CHERANELLOOR, ERNAKULAM DIST.

¶11

V.T.LIJO, AGED 23 YEARS, S/O.THANKACHAN, VETTAPARAMBIL HOUSE, CHERANELLOOR, ERNAKULAM DIST.

¶12

BY ADV. SRI.P.A.MUJEEB

¶13

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:-

¶14

¶15

STATE OF KERALA, THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

¶16

ADV. SRI. C.S. HRITHWIK, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶17

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

V. RAMKUMAR, J.

¶19

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

¶20

Bail Application No. 4817 of 2011

¶21

.......................................... Dated this the 29^th day of June, 2011.

¶22

ORDER

¶23

Petitioners who are accused Nos. 1 and 2 in Crime No. 383 of 2011 of Varapuzha Police Station, Ernakulam for offences punishable under Sections 323 and 326 r/w Section 34 I.P.C., seek anticipatory bail.

¶24

The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application.

¶25

After evaluating the factors and parameters which are

¶26

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

¶27

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 13.07.2011 or on 14.07.2011 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

¶28

B.A. No. 4817/2011 -:2:-

¶29

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.

¶30

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 .

¶31

This petition is disposed of as above. Dated this the 29^th day of June, 2011.

¶32

sd/- V.RAMKUMAR, JUDGE.

//True Copy//

P.A to Judge.

B.A. No. 4817/2011 -:3:-

Augustine Sijo and Another v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Augustine Sijo and Another 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gireesh @ Rajeevan Vs State of Kerala

C.v.John Vs C.v.Paul

Rajagopala Rao Vs G.K.Vasudeva Rao

Adv.Haridas Vs State of Kerala

Saiju Nissa Vs Daniel Yohannan & Anr.

K.S.Ismail Vs M.K.Maichael