IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR WEDNESDAY, THE 12TH JANUARY 2011 / 22ND POUSHA 1932 Bail Appl..No. 24 of 2011() ------------------------------ (CRIME NO. 795/2010 OF PALODE POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT) ....... PETITIONERS/ACCUSED ---------------------------- 1. SAJEEV, AGED 29 YEARS, SANTHOSH NIVAS, PERINGAMMALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. 2. ABHIJITH,S/O.RETNAKARAN, AGED 20 YEARS, UDAYAGIRI ATTINGAL P.O. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DIST. 3. RENJU, AGED 24 YEARS, S/O.RAJU, V.R.BHAVAN, PERINGAMMALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DIST. 4. PRASAD, AGED 45 YEARS,S/O.PUSHPANGATHAN, BLOCK NO.74, CHALLIMUKKU, PERINGAMMALA, THIRUVNANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.LIJU. M.P RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT -------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SUB INSEPCTOR OF POLICE, PALODE POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.M.S.BREEZE THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: svs V. RAMKUMAR, J. ======================== B.A. No. 24 of 2011 ======================== Dated this the 12th day of January, 2011. ORDER Petitioners who are accused Nos. 1 to 4 in Crime No.795 of 2010 of Palode Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 341, 294(b), 323, 324, 326 and 308 r/w Section 34 I.P.C., seek anticipatory bail. 2. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the 4th petitioner who was the 4th accused, has subsequently been deleted. If so, the apprehension of arrest and harassment entertained by the 4th petitioner is unfounded and his application for anticipatory bail is dismissed. 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. 24/2011 2 interrogating the petitioners. But at the same time, I am inclined to permit petitioners 1 to 3 (A1 to A3) to surrender before the Investigating Officer for the purpose of interrogation and then to have their application for bail allowed by the Magistrate or the Court having jurisdiction. Accordingly, petitioners 1 to 3 shall surrender before the investigating officer on 24.01.2011 or on 25.01.2011 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 petitioners 1 to 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 to 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 to 3 is without arresting them, they shall thereafter appear before the Magistrate or the Court concerned and apply for regular bail. The Magistrate or the Court on being satisfied that petitioners 1 to 3 have been interrogated by the police shall, after hearing the prosecution as B.A. No. 24/2011 3 well, release them on bail. 4. In case petitioners 1 to 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 accused. 5. The release of petitioners 1 to 3 shall be on each the petitioners executing a bond for `15,000/- (Rupees fifteen thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court concerned and subject to the following conditions:- 1. Petitioners 1 to 3 shall report before the Investigating Officer between 9 a.m. and 11 a.m. on all Wednesdays. 2. Petitioners 1 to 3 shall make themselves available for B.A. No. 24/2011 4 interrogation including custodial interrogation as and when required by the Investigating Officer. 3. Petitioners 1 to 3 shall not influence or intimidate the prosecution witnesses nor shall they attempt to tamper with the evidence for the prosecution. 4. Petitioners 1 to 3 shall not commit any offence while on bail. 5. If petitioners 1 to 3 commit breach of any of the above conditions, the bail granted to them shall be liable to be cancelled. This petition is disposed of as above. Dated this the 12th day of January, 2011. V.RAMKUMAR, JUDGE. rv