Dismissed

Vijilesh v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC21 Dec 2011Bail Appl./4846/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petition sought anticipatory bail for charges under IPC 376, 496 and SC/ST Act. Court refused anticipatory bail as investigation incomplete. Directed petitioner to surrender by January 2012 for interrogation, enabling Police to establish arrest necessity before regular bail application.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to surrender by 05.01.2012 or 06.01.2012 for interrogation before applying for regular bail.

Vijilesh 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 WEDNESDAY, THE 21ST DECEMBER 2011 / 30TH AGRAHAYANA 1933

¶3

Bail Appl..No. 4846 of 2011 -------------------------------------[CRIME NO.335/2011 OF MUHAMMA POLICE STATION, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT]

¶4

PETITIONER/ACCUSED: ----------------------------------

¶5

VIJILESH, S/O.VIJAYAN, AGED 22 YEARS, PANIKAMVELI HOUSE, WEST OF PUNNAPRA POLICE STATION, PUNNAPRA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.

¶6

BY ADVS. SRI.P.KRISHNA KUMAR (ALAPPUZHA), SRI.SUNIL J.CHAKKALACKAL.

¶7

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT: ---------------------------------------------

¶8

THE STATE OF KERALA, THROUGH THE DY.S.P., CHERTHALA, REP.BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

¶9

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. R. REMA.

¶10

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/12/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶11

Prv.

¶12

V. RAMKUMAR, J.

¶13

Bail Application No.4846 of 2011

¶14

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

¶15

ORDER

¶16

Petitioner, who is the sole accused in Crime No.335/2011 of Muhamma Police Station, Alappuzha District for offences punishable under Sections 376 and 496 I.P.C. and Section 3(i) (xi) of the Schedule Castes & Scheduled Tribes Prevention of Attrocities Act, 1989, seeks anticipatory bail.

¶17

The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application.

¶18

After evaluating the factors and parameters which are to be taken into consideration in the light of paragraph 122 of the verdict of the Apex Court in Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra and Others (2010 (4) KLT 930) , 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. But at the same time, I am inclined to permit the petitioner to surrender before the Investigating Officer for the purpose of interrogation and then to have his application for bail considered by the Magistrate or the Court having jurisdiction. Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to surrender before the investigating officer on 05.01.2012 or on 06.01.2012 for the purpose of interrogation and recovery of incriminating material, if any. In case the investigating officer is of the view that having regard to the facts of the case arrest of the petitioner is imperative he shall record his reasons for the arrest in the case-diary as insisted in paragraph 129 of Siddharam's case (supra). The petitioner shall thereafter be produced before the Magistrate or the Court concerned and permitted to file an application for regular bail. In

¶19

B.A.No.4846/2011 2

¶20

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 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.

¶21

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 .

¶22

This petition is disposed of as above.

¶23

V.RAMKUMAR, JUDGE

¶24

Vijilesh v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vijilesh 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

Suresan @ Suresh Vs State of Kerala

Yahya C.T. Vs State of Kerala

Sankaranayanan Vs State of Kerala

Reneesh N.C. Vs State of Kerala

Sojan J.James Vs State of Kerala and Another

Kunjumon Vs State of Kerala