Dismissed

Anees v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC8 Feb 2011Bail Appl./743/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court judge rejected immediate anticipatory bail but directed the 5th accused to surrender for interrogation by the Investigating Officer before applying for regular bail. Directions issued regarding arbitration of time limits and recording reasons for arrest.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to surrender for interrogation on 21.02.2011 or 22.02.2011; regular bail application permitted thereafter.

Anees Vs State of Kerala — Bail and Remand | Kerala HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR TUESDAY, THE 8TH FEBRUARY 2011 / 19TH MAGHA 1932 Bail Appl..No. 743 of 2011() --------------------------------------CRIME NO.323/2010 OF CHAVARA POLICE STATION, KOLLAM DISTRICT ...............

¶3

PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.5 ------------------------------------------ANEES, S/O.SUBAIR KUNJU, KANIYANTATHU PUTHENVEEDU, MUKUNDAPURAM. P.O., CHAVARA.P.O., KOTTUKADU, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.C.S.MANU, SRI.S.K. PREMRAJ.

¶4

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT

¶5

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

¶6

STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CHAVARA POLICE STATION, CHAVARA, KOLLAM DISTRICT. (NOTICE TO WHOM MAY BE SERVED ON THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM).

¶7

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR.C.S. HRITHWIK.

¶8

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/02/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶9

¶10

V. RAMKUMAR, J.

¶11

B.A. No.743 of 2011

¶12

.......................................... Dated this the 8^th day of February, 2011

¶13

ORDER

¶14

Petitioner, who is the 5^th accused in Crime No.323/2010 of Chavara Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 143,147,148,324 and 308 read with 149 I.P.C., seeks anticipatory bail.

¶15

The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the

¶16

application.

¶17

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

¶18

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

¶19

B.A. No.743 /2011 -:2:-

¶20

Court having jurisdiction. Accordingly, the petitioner shall surrender before the investigating officer on 21.02.2011 or on 22.02.2011 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 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 and apply for regular bail on the same day or the next day. 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.

¶21

In case the petitioner while surrendering before the Investigating Officer has deprived the investigating

¶22

B.A. No.743 /2011 -:3:-

¶23

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.

¶24

This petition is disposed of as above. Dated this the 8th day of February, 2011.

¶25

V.RAMKUMAR, JUDGE

¶26

Anees v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anees 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/S.J.T.L Projects (P) Ltd. Vs Omprakash Ramachandani

Moideenkutty Vs Abraham George

Balan Vs Devaki

Dlf Universal Ltd. Vs Tecil Chemical & Hydro Power Ltd.

Dinesh Kumar K Vs James Varghese

T.Nasirudeen and Anr. Vs K.P.Sreedharan and Ors.