IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR TUESDAY, THE 7TH DECEMBER 2010 / 16TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 Bail Appl..No. 7892 of 2010() ---------------------------------------- ( CRIME NO. 218/2010 OFKUDIYAMALA POLICE STATION, KANNUR DISTRICT) ----------------------- PETITIONERS/ACCUSED: ---------------------------------------- 1. ROSILINE, PADINJAREVEETTIL, NELLIKUTTY, CHEMBERI, KANNUR DISTRICT. 2. AUGUSTINE CHACKO @ JIMMY, PADINJAREVEETTIL, NELLIKKUTTY, CHEMBERI, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.VIJAYAKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT & STATE: --------------------------------------------------------------- 1. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KUDIYAMALA POLICE STATION, KANNUR-670 682. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682 031. R1 & R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. V. TEK CHAND THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: sts V. RAMKUMAR, J. ................................ B.A. No. 7892 of 2010 .......................................... Dated this the 7th day of December, 2010 ORDER Petitioners, who are accused Nos. 1 and 2 in Crime No.218/2010 of Kudiyamala Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 447, 324 and 294(b) read with Section 34 I.P.C. and Section 3(1)(x) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, seek anticipatory bail. 2. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application. Since the second petitioner, who is the first accused has already been arrested pending this application, this application as far as A1 is concerned has become infructuous and it 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 (Crl.Appeal No. 2271 of 2010), 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.7892/2010 2 interrogating the first petitioner/second accused. But at the same time, I am inclined to permit the first petitioner/second accused to surrender before the Investigating Officer for the purpose of interrogation and then to have his application for bail considered by the Magistrate having jurisdiction. Accordingly, the first petitioner/second accused shall surrender before the investigating officer on 17.12.2010 or on 18.12.2010 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 first petitioner (second accused) 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 who on being satisfied that the first petitioner/second accused 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 B.A.No.7892/2010 3 case the interrogation of the petitioner is without arresting him, the petitioner shall thereafter appear before the Magistrate and apply for regular bail. The Magistrate on being satisfied that the first petitioner(second accused) 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. This petition is disposed of as above. V.RAMKUMAR, JUDGE ln