Partly allowed

Rohit & Others v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC22 Feb 2011Bail Appl./713/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala refused to grant anticipatory bail in a criminal case where interrogation was pending. Instead, the court ordered the petitioners to surrender for police interrogation before applying for regular bail before the Magistrate.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail denied; petitioners ordered to surrender on 03/03/2011 or 04/03/2011 for interrogation before applying for regular bail.

Rohit & Others Vs State of Kerala — Anticipatory Bail | Kerala HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR

¶3

TUESDAY, THE 22ND FEBRUARY 2011 / 3RD PHALGUNA 1932

¶4

Bail Appl..No. 713 of 2011() ----------------------------------------(CRIME NO.63/2011 OF KUNNAMKULAM POLICE STATION,THRISSUR DIST.) ....

¶5

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS.1 TO 3:

¶6

-------------------------------------------------------1. ROHIT,AGED 18 YEARS,S/O.MOHANAN, KOOTHOOR HOUSE,CHITTANJOOR POST,KUNNAMKULAM, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶7

2. JOBISH,S/O.JANARDHANAN,AGED 34 YEARS, AMMAT HOUSE,CHITTANJOOR POST,KUNNAMKULAM, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶8

3. SUNIL,KAKKASSERI HOUSE, CHITTANJOOR POST,KUNNAMKULAM, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.SANTHEEP ANKARATH

¶10

RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT:

¶11

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

¶12

STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTING STATION HOUSE OFFICER,KUNNAMKULAM POLICE STATION, KUNNAMKULAM 680 503,THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶13

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. C.S. HRITHWIK

¶14

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/02/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

Kss

¶16

V. RAMKUMAR, J.

¶17

Bail Application No.713 of 2011

¶18

Dated this the 22^nd day of February, 2011

¶19

ORDER

¶20

Petitioners, who are accused Nos.1 to 3 in Crime No.63 of 2011 of Kunnamkulam Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 323, 324 & 308 read with Section 34 I.P.C., seek anticipatory bail.

¶21

The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the

¶22

application.

¶23

After evaluating the factors and parameters which are to be taken into consideration in the light of paragraph 122 of the verdict dated 2-12-2010 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 petitioners. But at the same time, I am inclined to permit the petitioners to surrender before the Investigating Officer for the purpose of interrogation and then to

¶24

B.A.No.713/2011

¶25

-:2:-

¶26

have their application for bail considered by the Magistrate or the Court having jurisdiction. Accordingly, the petitioners shall surrender before the investigating officer on 03/03/2011 or on 04/03/2011 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 petitioners 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 petitioners 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 petitioners are without arresting them, the petitioners shall thereafter appear before the Magistrate or the Court concerned and apply for regular bail on the same day or the next day. The Magistrate or the Court on being satisfied that the petitioners have been interrogated by the police shall, after hearing the prosecution as well, consider and dispose of their application for regular bail preferably on the same date on which it is filed.

¶27

B.A.No.713/2011

¶28

-:3:-

¶29

In case the petitioners while surrendering before the Investigating Officer have 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 petitioners.

¶30

This petition is disposed of as above. Dated this the 22^nd day of February, 2011.

¶31

V.RAMKUMAR, JUDGE

¶32

skj

Rohit & Others v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rohit & Others 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

Raveendran Vs State of Kerala

Abdul Manaf Vs State of Kerala

Soman Vs State of Kerala and Another

Nasar Vs State of Kerala

Shaju @ Angala Shaju Vs State of Kerala

Nishanth Vs State of Kerala