Disposed

K.Suresh Kumar v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC25 Feb 2011Bail Appl./826/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appellant accused in offences under IPC Sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 323, 324 & 307 opposed the application opposing anticipatory bail. The Court refused immediate relief, directing surrender for interrogation before regular bail application.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to surrender on 10/03/2011 or 11/03/2011 for interrogation and recovery; subsequently apply for regular bail.

K.Suresh Kumar 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

FRIDAY, THE 25TH FEBRUARY 2011 / 6TH PHALGUNA 1932

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 826 of 2011() ---------------------------------------CRIME NO.27/2011 OF PULIKKEEZHU POLICE STATION, PATHANAMTHITTA. ...............

¶6

PETITIONER/ACCUSED

¶7

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

¶8

K. SURESH KUMAR, S/O.K.C. KARUNAKARAN, AGED 27 YEARS, KANKERIL HOUSE, NIRANAM CENTRAL. P.O., THIRUVALLA, PATHANAMTHITTA. (HIS NAME IS SHOWN AS AJI IN THE FIR)

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.P.KRISHNA KUMAR (ALAPPUZHA),

¶10

SRI.R. VIJAYA CHANDRAN, SRI.SUNIL J.CHAKKALACKAL.

¶11

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT

¶12

---------------------------------------------THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY S.H.O. OF POLICE, PULIKKEEZHU POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

¶13

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR.M.S. BREEZ.

¶14

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

¶16

V.RAMKUMAR, J.

¶17

Bail Application No.826 of 2011

¶18

Dated this the 25^th day of February, 2011

¶19

ORDER

¶20

Petitioner, who is accused No.1 in Crime No.27 of 2011

¶21

of Pulikkeezhu Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 323, 324 & 307 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

¶24

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

¶25

Bail Appln.No.826/2011

¶26

: 2 :

¶27

is directed to surrender before the investigating officer on 10/03/2011 or on 11/03/2011 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.

¶28

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

¶29

Bail Appln.No.826/2011

¶30

: 3 :

¶31

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 .

¶32

This petition is disposed of as above. Dated this the 25^th day of February, 2011.

¶33

V.RAMKUMAR, JUDGE

¶34

skj

K.Suresh Kumar v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Suresh Kumar 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

Reghu Vs State of Kerala

Thomas.G. Vs State of Kerala

Yousaf Vs Excise Range Officer

Sureshkumar Vs State of Kerala

Shameer Vs State of Kerala

Rajesh Vs State of Kerala