Allowed

M.K.Ibrahimkutty v. State & Another

Kerala HC27 Jun 2011Bail Appl./4939/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this bail application arising from charges under Section 420 and 34 IPC, the court denied anticipatory bail citing the need for police interrogation. The petitioner was directed to surrender by a specified date or upon arrest to be interrogated and then apply for regular bail before a Magistrate upon satisfaction of the police statement recording.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to surrender within specified time for interrogation; permitted to apply for regular bail after Magistrate satisfies inquiry is complete.

M.K.Ibrahimkutty Vs State & Another — Cheating and Forgery | Kerala HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR

¶4

MONDAY, THE 27TH JUNE 2011 / 6TH ASHADHA 1933

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 4939 of 2011()

¶6

¶7

CRIME NO. 659 OF 2011 OF HOSDURG POLICE STATION

¶8

PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.1

¶9

¶10

M.K.IBRAHIMKUTTY,AGED 65 YEARS, S/O.MAMMUNHI HAJI,RESIDING AT KOLAVAYAL, AJANUR VILLAGE,HOSDURG TALUK,P.O.KOLAVAYAL, KASARAGOD DISTRICT.

¶11

BY ADV. SMT.M.SHAZIA SULTHANA

¶12

RESPONDENT(S): STATE AND COMPLAINANT

¶13

¶14

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

¶15

THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER,(CRIME NO.659 OF 2011 OF HOSDURG POLICE STATION), KASARAGOD DISTRICT-671531.

¶16

PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. C.S. HRITHWIK

¶17

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

V. RAMKUMAR, J.

¶19

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

¶20

Bail Application No. 4939 of 2011

¶21

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

¶22

Dated: 27-06-2011

¶23

ORDER

¶24

Petitioner who is the first accused in Crime No. 659 of 2011 of Hosdurg Police Station, Kasaragod District for an offence punishable under Section 420 read with Sec. 34 I.P.C. seeks anticipatory bail.

¶25

The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application. 3. After evaluating the factors and parameters which are to be taken into consideration under 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 17-082011 or on 13-07-2011 for the purpose of interrogation and recovery of incriminating material, if any. In case the petitioner is arrested by the Investigating Officer before interrogation, he shall thereafter be produced before the Magistrate or the Court

¶26

B.A.No. 4939 of 2011

¶27

-:2:-

¶28

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 on 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, release the petitioner on bail.

¶29

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 .

¶30

The release of the petitioner shall be on the petitioner executing a bond for ` 15,000/- (Rupees fifteen thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court concerned and subject to the following conditions:-

¶31

1. Petitioner shall report before the Investigating Officer between 9 a.m. and 11 a.m. on all Wednesdays till the filing of the final report.

¶32

2. Petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person who is acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him or her from disclosing any information to the Court or to the police or to any other person in authority.

¶33

B.A.No. 4939 of 2011

¶34

-:3:-

¶35

3. Petitioner shall make himself available for interrogation as and when required by the police at any time till the filing of the final report.

¶36

4. Petitioner shall not establish any contact with any of the witnesses or accused in the case.

¶37

5. Petitioner shall not influence or intimidate the prosecution witnesses or the victims nor shall he attempt to tamper with the evidence for the prosecution.

¶38

6. Petitioner shall not commit any offence while on bail.

¶39

7. Petitioner shall notify to the Court their place of residence before executing the bail bond.

¶40

8. In case the petitioner commits breach of the above conditions, the bail granted to the petitioner shall be liable to be cancelled.

¶41

This petition is disposed of as above.

¶42

Dated this the 27^th day of June, 2011.

¶43

V.RAMKUMAR, JUDGE

¶44

ani/

M.K.Ibrahimkutty v. State & Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.K.Ibrahimkutty v. State & Another

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

Krishna Pai & Another Vs State of Kerala

Reshma Susheelan Vs State of Kerala

Devi and Another Vs State of Kerala

Hamza Vs Yuseph

Kunnappada Govindan Vs Puthiyapurayil Kunhiraman

Pulikkal Kavaki Munnayira Sangham,Pulikk Vs the Registrar and Registrar of Societies