Disposed

M.R.Vijayakumar v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC23 Feb 2011Bail Appl./705/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this bail application, the High Court of Kerala refused anticipatory bail for offences under Sections 447 and 326 I.P.C. The Court directed the petitioner to surrender for interrogation before the Investigating Officer, after which an application for regular bail would be considered by a Magistrate or Court of jurisdiction.

What did the court decide?

Directed petitioner to surrender on 05/03/2011 or 06/03/2011 for interrogation; subsequently apply for regular bail.

M.R.Vijayakumar Vs State of Kerala — Anticipatory Bail | Kerala HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 23RD FEBRUARY 2011 / 4TH PHALGUNA 1932

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 705 of 2011() --------------------------------------CRIME NO.9/2011 OF ARANMULA POLICE STATION, PATHANAMTHITTA DIST. ....................

¶6

PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

¶7

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

¶8

M.R. VIJAYA KUMAR, S/O.M.K. RAMA KRISHNAN, AGED 54 YEARS, MAVELIL HOUSE, EDAYARANMULA WEST P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.C.M.STEPHEN

¶10

RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANTS

¶11

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

¶12

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

¶13

2. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ARANMULA POLICE STATION, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT-689 533.

¶14

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

¶15

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

¶17

V. RAMKUMAR, J.

¶18

Bail Application No.705 of 2011

¶19

Dated this the 23^rd day of February, 2011

¶20

ORDER

¶21

Petitioner, who is the sole accused in Crime No.9 of 2011 of Aranmula Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 447 & 326 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 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

¶24

B.A.No.705/2011

¶25

-:2:-

¶26

investigating officer on 05/03/2011 or on 06/03/2011 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 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.

¶27

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

¶28

B.A.No.705/2011

¶29

-:3:-

¶30

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 .

¶31

This petition is disposed of as above.

¶32

Dated this the 23^rd day of February, 2011.

¶33

V.RAMKUMAR, JUDGE

¶34

skj

M.R.Vijayakumar v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.R.Vijayakumar 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

Rohit & Others Vs State of Kerala

Nasar Vs State of Kerala

Shaju @ Angala Shaju Vs State of Kerala

Ashraf Vs State of Kerala

Aryb Vs State of Kerala

Sajeesh S. Vs State of Kerala