IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR FRIDAY, THE 25TH MARCH 2011 / 4TH CHAITHRA 1933 Bail Appl..No. 2194 of 2011() ----------------------------- CRIME NO. 262/2011 of PUTHUR POLICE STATION PETITIONERS/ACCUSED:- ----------------------------- 1. HAZEEM, AGED 25 YEARS, S/O.ABDUL AZEEZ, KATHADIVILA VEEDU, MANNADI KIZHAKKU, KADAMPANADU VILLAGE, ADOOR TALUK. 2. VISWANATHAN NAIR, AGED 52 YEARS, S/O.KUTTAN PILLAI, THEKKIN KATTIL VEEDU, KULAKKADA EAST P.O., KULAKKADA VILLAGE, KOTTARAKKARA. BY ADV. SRI.ALEXANDER GEORGE RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT:- ------------------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY ITS DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTION, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PUTHUR POLICE STATION, KOTTARAKKARA, KOLLAM DISTRICT. ADV. SRI. M.S. BREEZE, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR, J. ============================= Bail Application No. 2194 of 2011 ============================= Dated this the 25th day of March, 2011. ORDER Petitioners who are accused Nos. 2 and 3 in Crime No. 262 of 2011 of Puthur Police Station for an offence punishable under Section 353 r/w Section 34 I.P.C., seek anticipatory bail. 2. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application. 3. After evaluating the factors and parameters which are to be taken into consideration under 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 the petitioners. But at the same time, I am inclined to permit the petitioners 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, the petitioners are directed to surrender before the investigating officer on 07.04.2011 or on 08.04.2011 for the purpose of interrogation and recovery of incriminating material, if B.A.No. 2194/2011 -:2:- any. In case the investigating officer is of the view that having regard to the facts of the case arrest of the petitioners 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 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 the petitioners is without arresting them, the petitioners shall thereafter appear before the Magistrate or the Court concerned on the same day or on the next day and apply for regular bail. The Magistrate or the Court on being satisfied that the petitioners have been interrogated by the police shall, after hearing the prosecution as well, release the petitioners on bail. 4. In case the petitioners 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 B.A.No. 2194/2011 -:3:- bound by the time limit fixed as above if sufficient time was not available after the production or appearance of the petitioners . 5. The release of the petitioners shall be on each of 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. The petitioners shall report before the Investigating Officer between 9 a.m. and 11 a.m. on all Wednesdays. 2. The petitioners shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person who is acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him or her from disclosing any information to the court or to the police. 3. The petitioners shall not establish any contact with any of the witnesses or accused in the case. 4. The petitioners shall not influence or intimidate the prosecution witnesses nor shall they attempt to tamper with the evidence for the prosecution. B.A.No. 2194/2011 -:4:- 5. The petitioners shall not commit any offence while on bail. 6. The petitioners shall notify their place of residence before executing the bail bond. This petition is disposed of as above. Dated this the 25th day of March, 2011. sd/- V.RAMKUMAR, JUDGE. rv //True Copy// P.A to Judge.