Disposed

Sojan J.James v. State of Kerala and Another

Kerala HC21 Dec 2011Bail Appl./6219/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala refused anticipatory bail for a petitioner accused of cheating under Section 420 IPC, deeming the offense too heinous without prior interrogation. However, it permitted the petitioner to surrender for interrogation before the investigating officer and apply subsequently for regular bail.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to surrender for interrogation on specified dates; permitted to apply subsequently for regular bail.

Sojan J.James Vs State of Kerala and 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

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

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 6219 of 2011()

¶6

-----------------------------

¶7

(CRIME NO.1996 OF 2011 OF ALUVA POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM DIST.

¶8

PETITIONER

¶9

---------------

¶10

SOJAN J.JAMES, AGED 55 YEARS, S/O.V.D.JACOB, THOPPIL HOUSE, OPP.LIC BUILDING ALUVA

¶11

BY ADV. SRI.GRASHIOUS KURIAKOSE

¶12

RESPONDENT(S):

¶13

--------------------

¶14

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

¶15

2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ALUVA POLICE STATION, ALUVA

¶16

BY ADDL. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF PROSECUTION SRI.K.I.ABDUL RASHEED

¶17

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

¶18

¶19

V. RAMKUMAR, J.

¶20

Bail Application No. 6219 of 2011

¶21

December 21, 2011.

¶22

ORDER

¶23

Petitioner who is the first accused in crime no. 1996 of 2011 of Aluva Police Station, Ernakulam District for an offence punishable under Sec. 420 read with Sec. 34 I.P.C. seeks anticipatory bail.

¶24

The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application.

¶25

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 5-1-2012 or on 6-1-2012 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

¶26

Bail Application No. 6219 of 2011 -:2:-

¶27

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 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.

¶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 after the production or appearance of the petitioner .

¶29

This petition is disposed of as above.

¶30

Dated this the 21st of December, 2011.

Sd/- V.RAMKUMAR,

JUDGE

ani/

/true copy/

P.S. to Judge

Bail Application No. 6219 of 2011 -:3:-

Sojan J.James v. State of Kerala and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sojan J.James v. State of Kerala and 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

Suresan @ Suresh Vs State of Kerala

Yahya C.T. Vs State of Kerala

Sankaranayanan Vs State of Kerala

Vijilesh Vs State of Kerala

Reneesh N.C. Vs State of Kerala

Kunjumon Vs State of Kerala