Dismissed

Reghu v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC24 Feb 2011Bail Appl./635/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Hon'ble V. Ramkumar J. dismissed the anticipatory bail application in a Section 394 IPC case, directing the petitioner to surrender on 07/03/2011 or 08/03/2011 for interrogation before seeking regular bail from the Magistrate or Court.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail denied; direction to surrender on 07/03/2011 or 08/03/2011 for interrogation and subsequently apply for regular bail.

Reghu 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

THURSDAY, THE 24TH FEBRUARY 2011 / 5TH PHALGUNA 1932

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 635 of 2011()

¶6

--------------------------------------CRMP.97/2011 of D.C. & SESSIONS COURT,KOLLAM CRIME NO.2/11 OF KARUNAGAPPALLY POLICE STATION, KOLLAM DISTRICT

¶7

PETITIONER/ ACCUSED

¶8

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

¶9

REGHU, S/O.DAMODARAN, AGED 42 YEARS, ASHTAPADI, KALLELIBHAGOM VILLAGE, KARUNAGAPPALLY, KOLLAM.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.C.UNNIKRISHNAN (KOLLAM)

¶11

RESPONDENT(S):

¶12

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

¶13

1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.KOCHI-31

¶14

2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KARUNAGAPPALLY, KOLLAM.

¶15

R1 & R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.C.S.HRITHWIK

¶16

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

sts

¶18

V. RAMKUMAR, J.

¶19

Bail Application No.635 of 2011

¶20

Dated this the 24^th day of February, 2011

¶21

ORDER

¶22

Petitioner, who is accused No.1 in Crime No.2 of 2011 of Karunagappally Police Station for an offence punishable under Section 394 I.P.C., seeks anticipatory bail.

¶23

The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application.

¶24

After evaluating the factors and parameters which are to be taken into consideration under 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 allowed by the Magistrate or the Court having jurisdiction. Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to surrender before the investigating officer on 07/03/2011 or on 08/03/2011 for the purpose of interrogation and recovery of incriminating material, if

¶25

B.A.No.635/2011

¶26

-:2:-

¶27

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 Satlingappa Mhetre'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 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.

¶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 accused .

¶29

B.A.No.635/2011

¶30

-:3:-

¶31

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:-

¶32

1. The petitioner shall report before the Investigating Officer between 9 a.m. and 11 a.m. on all Wednesdays.

¶33

2. The petitioner shall make himself available for interrogation including custodial interrogation as and when required by the Investigating Officer.

¶34

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

¶35

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

¶36

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

¶37

This petition is disposed of as above.

¶38

Dated this the 24^th day of February, 2011.

¶39

V.RAMKUMAR, JUDGE

¶40

skj

Reghu v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Reghu 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

M.R.Vijayakumar Vs State of Kerala

Ashraf Vs State of Kerala

Aryb Vs State of Kerala

Thomas.G. Vs State of Kerala

Yousaf Vs Excise Range Officer

C.v.Joseph Vs State of Kerala