IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR MONDAY, THE 20TH DECEMBER 2010 / 29TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 Bail Appl..No. 8231 of 2010(B) ------------------------------------------ [ CRIME-UNNOWN, CHADAYAMANGALAM POLICE STATION, KOLLAM DISTRICT] ................... PETITIONERS/ACCUSED: ------------------------------------ 1. JAYESH, JAYESH BHAVAN, AYUR MURI, EDAMULAKKAL ,KOTTARAKKARA. 2. JAYACHANDRAN, JAYESH BHAVAN, AYUR MURI,EDAMULAKKAL,KOTTARAKKARA. 3. THANKAMANI, JAYESH BHAVAN,AYUR MURI, EDAMULAKKAL, KOTTARAKKARA. BY ADV. SRI.SYAM .J .SAM. RESPONDENT: ---------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM – 682 031. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. C.S. HRITHWIK. THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/12/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: prv. V. RAMKUMAR, J. ......................................... B.A. No.8231 of 2010 .......................................... Dated this the 20 th day of December,2010 ORDER Petitioners, who are accused Nos.1 to 3 in Crime No.1821/2010 of Chadayamangalam Police Station for an offence punishable under Section 498A I.P.C., seek anticipatory bail. 2. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application and submitted that the 2nd petitioner is not arrayed as an accused in this case and the 1st and 3rd petitioners are accused Nos.1 and 2 respectively. The request for anticipatory bail by the 2nd petitioner is accordingly rejected. 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 petitioners1 and 3. But at the same time, I am inclined to permit petitioners1 and 3 to surrender before the B.A. No. 8231/2010 -:2:- 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, petitioners1 and 3 shall surrender before the investigating officer on 30.12.2010 or on 31.12.2010 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 petitioners1 and 3 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). Petitioners 1 and 3 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 petitioners 1 and 3 are without arresting them, petitioners1 and 3 shall thereafter appear before the Magistrate or the Court concerned and apply for regular bail. The Magistrate or the Court on being satisfied that petitioners1 and 3 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. B.A. No. 8231/2010 -:3:- In case petitioners1 and 3 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 20 th day of December, 2010. V.RAMKUMAR, JUDGE sj