Disposed

K.K.Noushad v. the S.H.O., Balussery Police Station

Kerala HC25 Feb 2011Bail Appl./847/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court rejected an application for anticipatory bail in a case involving robbery under Section 395 IPC. Instead, it directed the petitioners to surrender for interrogation to ensure they face trial only after their narrative is recorded.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners directed to surrender for interrogation by 11.03.2011; regular bail to be considered after interrogation upon production.

K.K.Noushad Vs the S.H.O., Balussery Police Station — Anticipatory Bail | 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. 847 of 2011()

¶6

--------------------------------------(CRIME NO.479/2010 OF BALUSSERY POLICE STATION,KOZHIKODE DISTRICT)

¶7

PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED:

¶8

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

¶9

1. K.K.NOUSHAD, S/O. ABOOBACKER, AGED 29 YEARS, RESIDING AT KANIYANKUNNU HOUSE , P.O.PAVANNURMOTTA,KANNUR.

¶10

2. CHANDRAN.M, S/O.NARAYANAN, AGED 32 YEARS, RESIDING AT SREERAM, P.O.ULIYIL,KANNUR.

¶11

BY ADV. SRI.C.K.SREEJITH

¶12

RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT:

¶13

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

¶14

1. THE S.H.O., BALUSSERY POLICE STATION, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, REP BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

¶15

2. THE STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

¶16

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

¶17

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

¶18

Kss

¶19

V. RAMKUMAR, J.

¶20

================= Bail Application No. 847 of 2011

¶21

=================

¶22

Dated this the 25^th day of February, 2011.

¶23

ORDER

¶24

Petitioners who are accused Nos.3 and 4 in Crime No. 479 of 2010 of Balussery Police Station for an offence punishable under Section 395 I.P.C., seek anticipatory bail.

¶25

The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the

¶26

application.

¶27

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

¶28

Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra and Others (2010 (4) KLT

¶29

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 have their application for bail considered by the Magistrate or the Court having jurisdiction. Accordingly, the

¶30

B.A. No. 847/2011

¶31

-:2:-

¶32

petitioners are 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 petitioners 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 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 is without arresting them, the petitioners 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 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.

¶33

In case the petitioners while surrendering before the Investigating Officer have deprived the investigating officer sufficient time for interrogation, the officer shall complete the

¶34

B.A. No. 847/2011

¶35

-:3:-

¶36

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 .

¶37

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

¶38

V.RAMKUMAR, JUDGE

//True Copy//

P.A to Judge.

B.A. No. 847/2011 -:4:-

K.K.Noushad v. the S.H.O., Balussery Police Station

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.K.Noushad v. the S.H.O., Balussery Police Station

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

Ashik Vs State of Kerala

Abbas Vs State of Kerala

L.Ganesh Vs State of Kerala

P.M. Abbas Vs S.I. of Police, Beypre Police Station

Bhargavi Amma & Others Vs Chandrasekhara Pillai

Kunhi Mon Vs Leela