The High Court of Kerala refused anticipatory bail to the 9th accused, directing him to surrender for interrogation by the investigating officer before applying for regular bail, citing the need to evaluate incriminating material.
Petitioner directed to surrender for interrogation and apply for regular bail thereafter; anticipatory bail refused.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR MONDAY, THE 19TH DECEMBER 2011 / 28TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 Bail Appl..No. 6299 of 2011() -----------------------------------------(CRIME NO.370/10 OF KODENCHERY POLICE STATION, KOZHIKODE) ..........
PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.9. --------------------------------------------
YAHYA C.T., AGED 26 YEARS, S/O.MUSLIM, ALAPPADIMEL HOUSE, AMBALAMUKKU, THAMARASSERY POST, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.M.ASOKAN, SRI.DEVAPRASANTH.P.J.
RESPONDENT(S): RESPSONDENT/COMPLAINANT:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SI OF POLICE, KODENCHERY POLICE STATION, KOZHIKODE, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM.
BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. R. REMA
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/12/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Kss
V. RAMKUMAR, J.
......................................... Bail Application No.6299 of 2011
Dated: 19.12.2011
ORDER
Petitioner, who is the 9th accused in Crime No.370/2010 of Kodenchery Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 143,147,148,332,395 and 307 read with 149 I.P.C., seeks anticipatory bail.
B.A. No.6299/ 2011
-:2:-
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.
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 .
This petition is disposed of as above.
Dated this the 19th day of December, 2011.
V.RAMKUMAR, JUDGE
sj
2 issues framed by the court
Whether anticipatory bail should be granted in a case involving offences under Sections 143, 147, 148, 332, 395 and 307 read with 149 I.P.C.
Whether the investigating officer should be allowed to interrogate the petitioner before regular bail is considered.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra and OthersReferred¶2
Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra and Others-(2011) 1 SCC 694 · Who else cites this
Yahya C.T.
State of Kerala
V. Ramkumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
