IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR TUESDAY, THE 24TH MAY 2011 / 3RD JYAISHTA 1933 Bail Appl..No. 3795 of 2011() ----------------------------- CRIME NO. 225/2011 OF PERAMBRA POLICE STATION, KOZHIKODE PETITIONERS/ACCUSED:- ----------------------------- 1. ABDUL RAFEEQ,S/O.MOOSA,AGED 24 YEARS, NAGATH MEETHAL HOUSE,MUTUVANNACHA,PALERI POST, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. 2. SHAMMU,S/O.KUNHAMMEDKUTTY,AGED 21 YEARS, IRIKUNNUMMAL HOUSE,KADIYANGAD POST,PERAMBRA, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. 3. AJNAS,S/O.KUNHAMMEDKUTTY, KULPACHALIL HOUSE,KADIYANGAD POST,PERAMBRA,KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. 4. SHAMEER,S/O.MOHAMMED,AGED 20 YEARS, KARUKULATH,KADIYANGAD POST,PERAMBRA, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.P.SUDHEER RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:- ------------------------------------ STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTING SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,PERAMBRA POLICE STATION,PERAMBRA-673 525, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. ADV. SRI. C.S. HRITHWIK, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24/05/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR, J. ......................................... Bail Application No. 3795 of 2011 .......................................... Dated this the 24th day of May, 2011. ORDER Petitioners who are the accused in Crime No.225 of 2011 of Perambra Police Station, Kozhikode for offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 341, 427 and 308 read with Section 149 I.P.C., seek anticipatory bail. 2. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application. The learned Public Prosecutor on instructions, submitted that the 2nd petitioner is not an accused in the case and that petitioners 1, 3 and 4 are accused Nos. 1, 6 and 5 respectively. If so, the apprehension of arrest and harassment entertained by the 2nd petitioner is unfounded and the application so far as the 2nd petitioner is concerned, is dismissed. 3. After evaluating the factors and parameters which are to be taken into consideration in the light of paragraph 112 of the verdict of the Apex Court in Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra and Others - (2011) 1 SCC 694 , 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. Accordingly, petitioners 1, 3 and 4 are directed to surrender before the investigating officer on 06.06.2011 or on 07.06.2011 for the purpose of interrogation and recovery of incriminating material, if any. In case the petitioners are arrested by B.A. No. 3795/2011 -:2:- the Investigating Officer before interrogation, the petitioners 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, 3 and 4 is without arresting them, the said 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 petitioners 1, 3 and 4 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 petitioners petitioners 1, 3 and 4 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 24th day of May, 2011. sd/- V.RAMKUMAR, JUDGE rv //True Copy// P.A to Judge. B.A. No. 3795/2011 -:3:-