Dismissed

Adv.Haridas v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC29 Jun 2011Bail Appl./4951/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court refused anticipatory bail to the 4th accused in a cheating/misappropriation case pending investigation, directing surrender for police interrogation under guidelines of Mhetre. Regular bail was permitted only after interrogation and police report submission, subject to strict bond conditions.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to surrender for interrogation; permitted to apply for regular bail after interrogation; bail bond of Rs. 15,000 with two sureties and conditions imposed.

Adv.Haridas Vs State of Kerala — Bail and Remand | 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. 4951 of 2011() --------------------------------

¶6

CRIME NO. 213/2011 of PUTHENCRUZE POLICE STATION

¶7

PETITIONER/A4:-------------------

¶8

ADV.HARIDAS, AGED 51, S/O.LATE K.P.RAMNAD, KARTHIKA, MAMPILLI LANE, SOUTH EROOR, TRIPUNITHURA.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.C.P.UDAYABHANU

¶10

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:-

¶11

¶12

STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE S.I. OF POLICE, PUTHENCRUZ POLICE STATION, (CRIME 213/2011) REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

¶13

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

¶14

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

¶15

V. RAMKUMAR, J.

¶16

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

¶17

B.A. No. 4951 of 2011

¶18

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

¶19

ORDER

¶20

Petitioner who is the 4^th accused in Crime

¶21

No. 213 of 2011 of Puthencruze Police Station, Ernakulam for offences punishable under Sections 461, 381 and 411 r/w Section 34 I.P.C., seeks anticipatory bail.

¶22

The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application.

¶23

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 13.07.2011 or on 14.07.2011 for the purpose of interrogation and recovery of incriminating material, if any.

¶24

B.A.No. 4951/2011

¶25

-:2:-

¶26

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

¶27

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.

¶28

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

¶29

B.A.No. 4951/2011

¶30

-:3:-

¶31

after the production or appearance of the petitioner.

¶32

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:-

¶33

1. The 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.

¶34

2. The 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.

¶35

3. The 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. The petitioner shall not establish any contact with any of the witnesses or accused in the case.

¶37

5. The 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. The petitioner shall not commit any offence while on bail .

¶39

B.A.No. 4951/2011

¶40

-:4:-

¶41

7. The petitioner shall notify to the Court his place of residence before executing the bail bond.

¶42

8. If the petitioner commits breach of any of the above conditions, the bail granted to him shall be liable to be cancelled.

¶43

This petition is disposed of as above.

¶44

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

¶45

sd/- V.RAMKUMAR, JUDGE.

¶46

¶47

//True Copy//

¶48

P.A to Judge.

Adv.Haridas v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Adv.Haridas 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

Gireesh @ Rajeevan Vs State of Kerala

C.v.John Vs C.v.Paul

Rajagopala Rao Vs G.K.Vasudeva Rao

Augustine Sijo and Another Vs State of Kerala

Saiju Nissa Vs Daniel Yohannan & Anr.

K.S.Ismail Vs M.K.Maichael