IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR MONDAY, THE 21ST MARCH 2011 / ]0TH PHALGUNA 1932 Bail Appl..No. 1929 of 2011() ----------------------------- CRIME NO. 141/2011 OF NJARACKAL POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM PETITIONERS/ACCUSED:- ----------------------------- 1. BIJU, S/O.KONNAN KUTTY, AGED 34 YEARS, ARRUKKATTU VEEDU, NAYARAMBALAM, NEGUMGAD NORTH, KOCHI. 2. RAJESH, S/O.KONNAN KUTTY, AGED 32 YEARS, ARRUKKATTU VEEDU, NAYARAMBALAM, NEGUMGAD NORTH, KOCHI. 3. SHIBU, S/O.KONNAN KUTTY, AGED 36 YEARS, ARRUKKATTU VEEDU, NAYARAMBALAM, NEGUMGAD NORTH, KOCHI. BY ADV. SRI.S.RAJEEV RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:- ----------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM (CRIME NO.141/2011 OF NJARACKAL POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.) ADV. SRI. C.S. HRITHWIK, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR, J. -------------------------------------------------- Bail Application No. 1929 of 2011 --------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 21st day of March, 2011. ORDER Petitioners, who are accused Nos.1 to 3 in Crime No.141 of 2011 of Njarackal Police Station, Ernakulam for offences punishable under Sections 307, 447, 326 and 354 read with Section 34 I.P.C and Section 3(1)(xi) of SC/ST Prevention of Atrocities Act, seek anticipatory bail. 2. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the 3rd petitioner who is the 1st accused has been arrested yesterday (20/03/2011). If so, application for anticipatory bail so far as A1 is concerned has become infructuous and is accordingly dismissed. 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 first and second petitioners B.A. No. 1929/2011 -:2:- (A2 & A3). But at the same time, I am inclined to permit first and second petitioners (A2 & A3) 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, first and second petitioners (A2 & A3) are directed to surrender before the investigating officer on 04/04/2011 or on 05/04/2011 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 first and second petitioners (A2 & A3) 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 first and second petitioners (A2 & A3) 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 first and second petitioners (A2 & A3) is without arresting them, the said first and second petitioners (A2 & A3) 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 first and second B.A. No. 1929/2011 -:3:- petitioners (A2 & A3) 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 first and second petitioners (A2 & A3) 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 first and second petitioners (A2 & A3). This petition is disposed of as above. Dated this the 21st day of March, 2011. V.RAMKUMAR, JUDGE skj