Allowed

A.M.Sheriff v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC7 Oct 2016Bail Appl./7132/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner in a corruption case involving offences under the IPC and Prevention of Corruption Act. The court held that custodial interrogation was not required but directed the petitioner to cooperate with the investigation, reporting to the investigating officer on specific dates.

What did the court decide?

Bail allowed; petitioner enlarged on bond of ₹1,00,000 with two sureties for ₹1,00,000 each subject to conditions of reporting and cooperation.

A.M.Sheriff Vs State of Kerala — Bail and Remand | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.KEMAL PASHA

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2016/15TH ASWINA, 1938

¶5

Bail Appl.No. 7132 of 2016

¶6

CRIME NO.RC-11(A)/2016/CBI/ACB, COCHIN

¶7

PETITIONER(S):

¶8

A.M.SHERIFF, AGED 70, S/O. LATE K.AHAMED SADIQ, RESIDING AT 40/1141, PALLI STREET, NEAR CANARA BANK, PALAKKAD.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.P.A.AHAMMED SRI.THOUFEEK AHAMED

¶10

RESPONDENT(S)/STATE & COMPLAINANT :

¶11

1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682 031.

¶12

2. DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, KATHRIKKADAVU, KOCHI-682 017.

¶13

R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.C.S.HRITWIK R2 BY ADV. SRI.P.CHANDRASEKHARA PILLAI, C.B.I.

¶14

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07-10-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

msv/

¶16

B. KEMAL PASHA, J.

¶17

................................................................ B.A. No. 7132 of 2016

¶18

............................................................... Dated this the 7^th day of October, 2016

¶19

O R D E R

¶20

The petitioner has come up before this Court seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.R.C-11(A)/2016/CBI/ACB, Cochin, which has been registered for the offences punishable under Sections 120B and 420 IPC and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. According to the petitioner, he does not know whether he has been arraigned as an accused in the Crime.

¶21

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the CBI.

¶22

The learned Standing Counsel for the CBI has

¶23

B.A.No. 7132 of 2016

¶24

-: 2 :-

¶25

pointed out that presently the petitioner has been arraigned as A3 in the crime and investigation is going on. According to the learned Standing Counsel, the interrogation of the petitioner is required for the continued investigation of this case.

¶26

On hearing either side, this Court is of the view that this is not a case wherein custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required for the continued investigation of the case. At the same time, the petitioner shall co-operate with the investigation and make himself available for interrogation before the investigating officer.

¶27

In the result, this Bail Application is allowed and the investigating officer or such other police officer, who is conducting the arrest of the petitioner, is directed to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest on his executing a bond for ₹1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the officer conducting arrest, and subject to

¶28

B.A.No. 7132 of 2016

¶29

-: 3 :-

¶30

the following terms and conditions:-

¶31

(i) The petitioner shall report before the investigating officer in between 9 a.m. and 11 a.m. on all Fridays and Tuesdays, commencing from 14.10.2016 for a period of three months or till the filing of the final report in this case, whichever is earlier.

¶32

(ii) The petitioner shall not tamper with the evidence or influence witnesses.

¶33

(iii) The petitioner shall make himself available for interrogation as and when required by the investigating officer.

¶34

(iv) The petitioner shall not involve in any offence while on bail.

¶35

It is made clear that the violation of any of the

¶36

conditions stipulated above will result in the cancellation of

¶37

bail.

¶38

Sd/- B. KEMAL PASHA, JUDGE.

¶39

ul/-

¶40

// true copy //

¶41

P.S. to Judge.

A.M.Sheriff v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A.M.Sheriff 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Govindankutty Vs State of Kerala

K.v.Vidyadharan Vs State of Kerala

K.Raghavan Vs State of Kerala

Maniyan Vs the State of Kerala

Leela Vs State of Kerala

K.Manoharan Thampi Vs T.Shanmugan