V. RAMKUMAR v. State of Maharashtra (2010 (4) KLT 930), I am of the view & Ors.
Case at a glance
Outcome
Disposed of
This petition is disposed of as above
Provisions considered
- Essential Commodity Act, 1955 ss. 3, 7
Judgment
V. RAMKUMAR, J..........................................B.A. No. 8403 of 2010..........................................Dated this the 28th day of December, 2010.ORDERPetitioner who is the first accused in Crime No.864 of 2010of Thenmala Police Station for an offence punishable underSection 5(a) of Kerala Rationing Order, 1996 r/w Section 3 and 7of Essential Commodity Act, 1955, seeks anticipatory bail. 2. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application.3. After evaluating the factors and parameters whichare to be taken into consideration in the light of paragraph 122of the verdict dated 2-12-2010 of the Apex Court inSiddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra andOthers (2010 (4) KLT 930), I am of the view thatanticipatory bail cannot be granted in a case of this nature, sincethe investigating officer has not had the advantage ofinterrogating the petitioner. But at the same time, I am inclined B.A. No.8403 /2010-:2:-to permit the petitioner to surrender before the InvestigatingOfficer for the purpose of interrogation and then to have hisapplication for bail considered by the Magistrate or the Courthaving jurisdiction. Accordingly, the petitioner shall surrenderbefore the investigating officer on 06.01.2011 or on 07.01.2011for the purpose of interrogation and recovery of incriminatingmaterial, if any. In case the investigating officer is of the viewthat having regard to the facts of the case arrest of thepetitioner is imperative he shall record his reasons for the arrestin the case-diary as insisted in paragraph 129 of SiddharamSatlingappa Mhetre's case (supra). The petitioner shall thereafterbe produced before the Magistrate or the Court concerned andpermitted to file an application for regular bail. In case theinterrogation of the petitioner is without arresting him, thepetitioner shall thereafter appear before the Magistrate or theCourt concerned and apply for regular bail. The Magistrate or B.A. No.8403 /2010-:3:-the Court on being satisfied that the petitioner has beeninterrogated by the police shall, after hearing the prosecution aswell, consider and dispose of his application for regular bailpreferably on the same date on which it is filed. 4.In case the accused while surrendering before theInvestigating Officer has deprived the investigating officersufficient time for interrogation, the officer shall complete theinterrogation even if it is beyond the time limit fixed as aboveand submit a report to that effect to the Magistrate or the Courtconcerned. Likewise, the Magistrate or the Court also will not bebound by the time limit fixed as above if sufficient time wasnot available after the production or appearance of the accused . This petition is disposed of as above. Dated this the 28th day of December, 2010.V.RAMKUMAR, JUDGErv B.A. No.8403 /2010-:4:-
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: This petition is disposed of as above
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Essential Commodity Act, 1955 — ss. 3, 7.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Kerala High Court, on 28 Dec 2010. The bench was V RAMKUMAR.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No treatment data yet for this judgment in the Courts & Cases corpus.
Absence of data is not a statement about the judgment’s standing — the corpus covers only judgments we index and link with cited evidence.