Shyam Nair v. State of Kerala

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: V. Ramkumar
Judgment Date: 2011-01-03
Court Decision / Holding: Anticipatory bail cannot be granted; the petitioner shall surrender before the Investigating Officer for interrogation and then have the regular bail application considered by the Magistrate or the court having jurisdiction. If the interrogation occurs without arrest, the petitioner shall apply for regular bail; the Magistrate or the court shall consider and dispose of the regular bail preferably on the same date as filed. If the accused is deprived of sufficient time for interrogation, the IO shall complete it even beyond the fixed time limit and report accordingly; the Magistrate or court is not strictly bound by the time limit if circumstances require. This petition is disposed of as above.
Final Disposition: Disposed of as above.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Shyam Nair

Respondents

State of Kerala
Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam (Cr. No. 247/2010 of Irinjalakuda Police Station, Thrissur District)

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri. S. Rajeev

Counsels for Respondents

• Sri. M. S. Breeze

Case Synopsis & Summary

Shyam Nair, the fourth accused in Crime No. 247/2010 of Irinjalakuda Police Station, Thrissur District, moves for anticipatory bail under sections 406, 409 and 420 read with section 34 IPC. The Kerala High Court, under a Single Judge, Justice V. Ramkumar, evaluates the petition in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra and Others (2010) 4 KLT 930, particularly paragraph 122. The learned Public Prosecutor opposes anticipatory bail on the ground that bail should not be granted where interrogation has not yet occurred. The court, however, declines to grant anticipatory bail, but permits the petitioner to surrender before the investigating officer for interrogation and then have his regular bail application considered by the Magistrate or the court having jurisdiction. The order prescribes surrender on 12.01.2011 or 13.01.2011 for interrogation and possible recovery of incriminating material; if the IO deems arrest imperative, reasons must be recorded in the case diary as per paragraph 129 of Mhetre. The petitioner may then apply for regular bail, and if interrogation occurs without arrest, the petitioner shall still approach the Magistrate or court concerned. The Magistrate or court should decide the regular bail preferably on the same date as filing. If interrogation time is extended due to necessary circumstances, the IO may continue and report accordingly; the court is not strictly bound by the stated time limit. The petition is disposed of accordingly, balancing the need for interrogation with the protective framework for bail.”

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 406 IPCSection 409 IPCSection 420 read with Section 34 IPC

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Anticipatory bail doctrine
Guidance from Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra and Others (2010) 4 KLT 930 on bail and interrogation

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner sought anticipatory bail and argued that since the investigating officer had not interrogated him, anticipatory bail should be granted or that surrender for interrogation should be allowed before regular bail.

Contentions of Respondents

The State opposed the application, relying on the need for interrogation and the principles laid down in Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre, contending that anticipatory bail should not be granted in such cases.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra and Others	2010 (4) KLT 930	Positive	Cited as the controlling authority for the approach to anticipatory bail and the interrogation prerequisites; used to justify the decision not to grant anticipatory bail while permitting interrogation and subsequent regular bail.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** **PRESENT :** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR** **MONDAY, THE 3RD JANUARY 2011 / 13TH POUSHA 1932** **Bail Appl..No. 8450 of 2010()** **---------------------------------** **(CRIME NO. 247/2010 OF IRINJALAKUDA POLICE STATION, THRISSUR DISTRICT)** **..........** ## **PETITIONER/ACCUSED** **----------------------------** **SHYAM NAIR, S/O.KESAVAN, AGED 26 YEARS, OOLANGIL HOUSE, BHUMIYMKULAM, IDUKKI VILLAGE, IDUKKI DISTRICT.** **BY ADV. SRI.S.RAJEEV** **RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT** **--------------------------------------** **STATE OF KERALA,** **REP.BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM (CRIME NO.247/2010 OF IRINJALAKUDA POLICE STATION, THRISSUR DISTRICT)** **BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.M.S.BREEZE** **THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **svs** ## V. RAMKUMAR, J. **......................................... B.A. No. 8450 of 2010 .......................................... Dated this the 3[rd] day of January, 2011.** ## **ORDER** Petitioner who is the 4th accused in Crime No.247 of 2010 of Irinjalakuda Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 406, 409 and 420 read with Section 34 I.P.C., seeks 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 dated 2-12-2010 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 B.A. No.8450/2010 -:2:- 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 shall surrender before the investigating officer on 12.01.2011 or on 13.01.2011 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 B.A. No.8450/2010 -:3:- Court concerned 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. 4. In case the accused while surrendering before the Investigating Officer has 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 accused . This petition is disposed of as above. Dated this the 3rd day of January, 2011. ## **V.RAMKUMAR, JUDGE** rv B.A. No.8450/2010 -:4:- V. RAMKUMAR, J. **......................................... B.A. No. of 2011 .......................................... Dated this the 3[rd] day of January, 2011.** ## **ORDER** Petitioner who is the accused in Crime No. Police B.A. No.8450/2010 -:5:- Station for offences punishable under Sections I.P.C., seeks 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 dated 2-12-2010 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 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 shall surrender before the investigating officer on ........... or on ............... for the B.A. No.8450/2010 -:6:- 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. 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. 4. In case the accused while surrendering before the B.A. No.8450/2010 -:7:- Investigating Officer has 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 accused . This petition is disposed of as above. Dated this the 3rd day of January, 2011. ## **V.RAMKUMAR, JUDGE** rv B.A. No.8450/2010 -:8:-