IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR WEDNESDAY, THE 19TH JANUARY 2011 / 29TH POUSHA 1932 Bail Appl..No. 377 of 2011() ----------------------------------------- (CRIME NO.2/2011 OF CHATHANNOOR POLICE STATION,KOLLAM DIST.) ........... PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS.1 & 2: ----------------------------------------------------- 1. VINOD, S/O.KOCHUNARAYANAN, SIVA MANDIRAM, PANIYIL, THAZHAM THEKKU, CHIRAKKARA, CHATHANNOOR, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 2. CHANDRA BOSE, S/O.SADANANDAN, CHANDRA VILASOM, KARAMKODE P.O., ULIYANAD, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADVS. DR.K.P.SATHEESAN, SRI.K.K.GOPINATHAN NAIR, SRI.M.R.JAYAPRASAD, SRI.P.MOHANDAS (EKM), SRI.MATHEW SUNNY, SRI.ANOOP V.NAIR. RESPONDENT(S): STATE & COMPLAINANT: ----------------------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-31. 2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CHATHANNOOR POLICE STATION, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN-691 572. R1 & R2 BY BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.C.S.HRITHWIK THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/01/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss V. RAMKUMAR, J. ......................................... B.A. No.377 of 2011 .......................................... Dated this the 19th day of January, 2011 ORDER Petitioners, who are accused Nos.1 and 2 in Crime No.2/2011 of Chathannur Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 447,324,326 and 34 I.P.C., seeks anticipatory bail. 2. The learned Public Prosecutor on instructions submitted that the 2nd petitioner, who was originally the 2nd accused, has subsequently been deleted from the array of the accused and at present the 1st petitioner alone is the sole accused in the case. If so request for anticipatory bail by the 2nd petitioner is misconceived and is 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 B.A. No.377/2011 -:2:- interrogating the 1st petitioner. But at the same time, I am inclined to permit the 1st 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 1st petitioner shall surrender before the investigating officer on 28.01.2011 or on 29.01.2011 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 1st 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 1st 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 1st petitioner is without arresting him, the 1st petitioner shall thereafter appear before the Magistrate or the Court concerned and apply for regular bail on the same day or the next day. The Magistrate or the Court on being satisfied that the 1st petitioner has been interrogated by the police shall, after hearing the B.A. No.377/2011 -:3:- 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 1st petitioner 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 1st petitioner. This petition is disposed of as above. Dated this the 19 th day of January, 2011. V.RAMKUMAR, JUDGE sj