Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 6, Cited by 0]

Kerala High Court

Kannan vs State Of Kerala on 4 April, 2011

Author: V.Ramkumar

Bench: V.Ramkumar

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Bail Appl..No. 2459 of 2011()


1. KANNAN, AGED 22 YEARS, S/O.SATHYASEELAN
                      ...  Petitioner
2. SAJAN, AGED 25 YEARS, S/.RAJU,
3. ANEESH, AGED 23 YEARS, S/O.RAJENDRAN
4. LAL, AGED 23 YEARS, LAL BHAVANAM,

                        Vs



1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.N.VIMALAN

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.RAMKUMAR

 Dated :04/04/2011

 O R D E R
                          V. RAMKUMAR, J.
                 .........................................
                   Bail Application No.2459 of 2011
                ..........................................
                          Dated: 04.04.2011

                                 ORDER

Petitioners, who are accused Nos.1 to 4 in Crime No.317/2011 of Kottiyam Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 341,294(b),323,326 and 34 I.P.C., seek anticipatory bail.

2. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application.

3. 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 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 have their application for bail considered by the Magistrate or the Court having jurisdiction. Accordingly, the petitioners are directed to surrender before the investigating officer on 16.04.2011 or on 18.04.2011 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 B.A. No.2459/2011 -:2:- 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.

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 .

This petition is disposed of as above.

Dated this the 4th day of April, 2011.

V.RAMKUMAR, JUDGE sj