IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR TUESDAY, THE 21ST DECEMBER 2010 / 30TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 Bail Appl..No. 8242 of 2010() ----------------------------------------- (CRIME NO.762/2010 OF MAVELIKKARA POLICE STATION,ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT) ..... PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 2,3 & 5: ----------------------------------------------- 1. SUJITH R.PILLAI, SUNU BHAVAN, KALLUKUZHY, PONKUNNAM.P.O., MAVELIKKARA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. PIN-690 101. 2. SYAM KRISHNAN, SASI VIHAR, MANNAMKARACHIRA, KAVUMBHAGOM.P.O., THIRUVALLA, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN-689 102. 3. KIRANRAJ.S., PUTHENPURAYIL, MANNARASALA, HARIPPAD.P.O., ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN-690 550. BY ADVS. SRI.S.MANU, SMT. K.DEEPA. RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MAVELIKKARA POLICE STATION, MAVELIKKARA. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. M.S. BREEZ THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss V. RAMKUMAR, J. ................................ B.A. No.8242 of 2010 .......................................... Dated this the 21st day of December, 2010 ORDER Petitioners, who are the accused in Crime No.761/2010 of Mavelikkara Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 326 and 427 read with 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 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 inclined to permit the petitioners to surrender before the Investigating Officer for the purpose of interrogation and then to have their application for bail considered by the Magistrate or B.A.No.8242/2010 2 the Court having jurisdiction. Accordingly, the petitioners shall surrender before the investigating officer on 30.12.2010 or on 31.12.2010 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 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 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 are without arresting them, the petitioners shall thereafter appear before the Magistrate or the Court concerned 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, consider and dispose of their application for regular bail preferably on the same date on which it is filed. B.A.No.8242/2010 3 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 bound by the time limit fixed as above if sufficient time was not available after the production or appearance of the petitioners. This petition is disposed of as above. V.RAMKUMAR, JUDGE ln