IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR WEDNESDAY, THE 2ND FEBRUARY 2011 / 13TH MAGHA 1932 Bail Appl..No. 617 of 2011() ---------------------------- (CRIME NO.17 OF 2011 OF THIRUVALLAM POLICE STATION) PETITIONERS ----------------------- 1. AKHIL, S/O.ANI, AYYAMANGALATHU MELE VEEDU, THIRUVALLAM VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. CHINKU, S/O.APPU, KODITHOOKKIKUNNU VILA VEEDU, MENILAM, THIRUVALLAM.P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. SHAN, S/O.CHANDRAN, RESIDING AT -DO- -DO- 4. ASOKAN @ SOORAJ, S/O.THULASEEDHARAN OF -DO- BY ADV. SRI.R.T.PRADEEP RESPONDENT: COMPLAINANT -------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.C.S.HIRTHWIK THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR, J. --------------------------------------------------- Bail Application No.617 of 2011 ---------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 2nd day of February, 2011 ORDER Petitioners 1, 2 & 4, who are accused Nos.1 to 3 in Crime No.17 of 2011 of Thiruvallam Police Station, for offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 323, 324 & 326 I.P.C., seek anticipatory bail. 2. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that petitioners 1, 2 & 4 are accused Nos.1 to 3 respectively and the 3rd petitioner is not an accused. If so, the request for anticipatory bail on behalf of the 3rd petitioner 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 interrogating the petitioners. But at the same time, I am B.A.No.617/2011 -:2:- inclined to permit the petitioners 1, 2 & 4 (accused Nos.1 to 3) to surrender before the Investigating Officer for the purpose of interrogation and then to have their application for bail considered by the Magistrate or the Court having jurisdiction. Accordingly, the petitioners 1, 2 & 4 (accused Nos.1 to 3) shall surrender before the investigating officer on 14/02/2011 or on 16/02/2011 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 petitioners 1, 2 & 4 (accused Nos.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). The petitioners 1, 2 & 4 (accused Nos.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 the petitioners 1, 2 & 4 (accused Nos.1 to 3) are without arresting them, the petitioners 1, 2 & 4 (accused Nos.1 to 3) shall thereafter appear before the Magistrate or the Court concerned and apply for regular bail on B.A.No.617/2011 -:3:- the same day or the next day. The Magistrate or the Court on being satisfied that the petitioners 1, 2 & 4 (accused Nos.1 to 3) 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. 4. In case the petitioners 1, 2 & 4 (accused Nos.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 petitioners 1, 2 & 4 (accused Nos.1 to 3). This petition is disposed of as above. V.RAMKUMAR, JUDGE skj