IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR MONDAY, THE 28TH MARCH 2011 / 7TH CHAITHRA 1933 Bail Appl..No. 2230 of 2011() ----------------------------- CRIME NO. 190/2011 of KOLLAM EAST POLICE STATION PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS.1,2 & 3:- --------------------------------------------- 1. RATHEESH @ KUTTAN, S/O.OMANAKUTTAN, RATHEESH BHAVAN, PULIKKADA, KOLLAM EAST VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 2. BINU, S/O.MUHAMMEDKUNJU, SANKAR NAGAR, KOLLAM EAST VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 3. MANIKANTAN, S/O.GEORGE, PLURAMPOKKU, KONDETHU PALAM, MUNDAKKAL, MUNDAKKAL VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.C.RAJENDRAN RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:- ------------------------------------ STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KOLLAM EAST POLICE STATION THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. ADV. MR. M.S. BREEZE, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR, J. ====================== B.A. No. 2230 of 2011 ====================== Dated this the 28th day of March, 2011. ORDER Petitioners who are accused Nos. 1 to 3 in Crime No. 190 of 2011 of Kollam East Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 452, 323 and 324 r/w Section 34 I.P.C., seek anticipatory bail. 2. The learned Public Prosecutor on instructions submitted that petitioners 2 and 3 who were originally accused Nos. 2 and 3, have since been deleted from the array of accused and that the first petitioner is the surviving sole accused in the case. If so, the apprehension of arrest and harassment entertained by petitioners 2 and 3 is unfounded and their request for anticipatory bail is rejected. 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 petitioner. But at the same time, I am inclined to permit the first petitioner to surrender before the Investigating Officer for the purpose of interrogation and then to have his application for bail allowed by the Magistrate or the Court having jurisdiction. Accordingly, the first petitioner is 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 B.A.No. 2230/2011 -:2:- material, if any. In case the investigating officer is of the view that having regard to the facts of the case arrest of the petitioner 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 petitioner 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 first petitioner is without arresting him, he 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 first petitioner has been interrogated by the police shall, after hearing the prosecution as well, release the said petitioner on bail. 4. In case the first petitioner 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 the accused . 5. The release of the first petitioner shall be on the petitioner executing a bond for `. 15,000/- (Rupees fifteen thousand only) with two B.A.No. 2230/2011 -:3:- solvent sureties each for the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court concerned and subject to the following conditions:- 1. The first petitioner shall report before the Investigating Officer between 9 a.m. and 11 a.m. on all Wednesdays. 2. The first petitioner 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 first petitioner shall not establish any contact with any of the witnesses or accused in the case. 4. The first petitioner shall not influence or intimidate the prosecution witnesses nor shall he attempt to tamper with the evidence for the prosecution. 5. The first petitioner shall not commit any offence while on bail. 6. The first petitioner shall notify his place of residence before executing the bail bond. This petition is disposed of as above. Dated this the 28th day of March, 2011. sd/- V.RAMKUMAR, JUDGE. rv //True Copy// P.A to Judge.