IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR WEDNESDAY, THE 1ST JUNE 2011 / 11TH JYAISHTA 1933 Bail Appl..No. 3892 of 2011() ---------------------------------------- CRIME NO.342/2011 OF RANNI POLICE STATION, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT ----------------------------- PETITIONERS/ACCUSED --------------------------------------- 1. SABU CHACKO, AGED 48 YEARS, S/O. MATHAI, RESIDING AT EDAYADIMEPPURATHU HOUSE, AITHALA P.O., RANNI - PAZHAVANGADI VILLAGE, RANNI TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. 2. SOMON SABU, AGED 17 YEARS, S/O. SABU CHACKO, RESIDING AT EDAYADIMEPPURATHU HOUSE, AITHALA P.O., RANNI - PAZHAVANGADI VILLAGE, RANNI TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, REP. BY THE 1ST PETITIONER SABU CHACKO. 3. SAMON SABU, AGED 19 YEARS, S/O. SABU CHACKO, RESIDING AT EDAYADIMEPPURATHU HOUSE, AITHALA P.O., RANNI - PAZHAVANGADI VILLAGE, RANNI TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.V.SETHUNATH SRI.PRAKASH KESAVAN RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT/STATE ------------------------------------------------------------ 1. THE S.I. OF POLICE, RANNI POLICE STATION, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. R1 & R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.M.S.BREEZE THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: sts V. RAMKUMAR, J. ---------------------------------- Bail Application No.3892 of 2011 ----------------------------------- Dated this the 1st day of June, 2011 ORDER Petitioners, who are accused Nos.1 to 3 in Crime No.342 of 2011 of Ranni Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 323 & 326 read with Section 34 I.P.C., seek anticipatory bail. 2. The learned Public Prosecutor on instructions submitted that the petitioners 1 and 2 are accused Nos.1 & 2 and the 3rd petitioner is not an accused and that the second petitioner is a juvenile. If the 3rd petitioner is not an accused in the case, then the apprehension of arrest and harassment as entertained by the 3rd petitioner is unfounded and this application so far as it relates to 3rd petitioner is dismissed. Since the 2nd petitioner is a juvenile the case records so far as it relates to him shall be transferred to the Juvenile Justice Board and second petitioner (A2) shall also be forwarded to the Juvenile Justice Board to be dealt with in accordance with law. 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 first petitioner (A1). Accordingly, first petitioner (A1) is directed to surrender before the investigating officer on 13/06/2011 or on 14/06/2011 for the purpose of interrogation and recovery of B.A.No.3892/2011 2 incriminating material, if any. In case first petitioner (A1) is arrested by the Investigating Officer before interrogation, first petitioner (A1) 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 first petitioner (A1) is without arresting him, first petitioner (A1) 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 first petitioner (A1) has been interrogated by the police shall, after hearing the prosecution as well, consider and dispose of his application for regular bail preferably on the same date on which it is filed. In case first petitioner (A1) 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 first petitioner (A1). This petition is disposed of as above. Dated this the 1st day of June, 2011. V.RAMKUMAR, JUDGE skj