IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR FRIDAY, THE 14TH JANUARY 2011 / 24TH POUSHA 1932 Bail Appl..No. 21 of 2011() ------------------------------------ CRIME NO.2476/2010 OF THRIKKAKARA POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT -------------------------- PETITIONER/ACCUSED -------------------------------------- 1. GEEVARGHESE @ JIJO, AGED 32 YEARS, S/O.PAULOSE, NANGETH HOUSE, THENGODE P.O. KAKKANAD. 2. C.N.PAULOSE, AGED 63 YEARS, S/O.CHERIAN, NANGETH HOSUE, THENGODE P.O., KAKKANAD BY ADV. SRI.JAISON JOSEPH RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. SUB INSEPCTOR OF POLICE, THRIKKAKARA POLICE STATION - 682021. R1 & R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.C.S.HRITHWIK THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/01/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: sts V. RAMKUMAR, J. ......................................... B.A. No. 21 of 2011 .......................................... Dated: 14th January, 2011 ORDER Petitioners who are accused Nos. 1 and 2 in Crime No. 2476 of 2010 of Thrikkakkara Police Station, Ernakulam District for an offence punishable under Section 498 A 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 B.A. No. 21 of 2011 -:2:- purpose of interrogation and then to have their application for bail considered by the Magistrate or the Court having jurisdiction. Accordingly, the petitioners shall surrender before the investigating officer on 24-01-2011 or on 25-01-2011 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 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 is without arresting them, the petitioners shall thereafter appear before the Magistrate or the Court concerned and apply for regular bail on the same day or the next day. 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. 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 B.A. No. 21 of 2011 -:3:- 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. Dated this the 14th day of January, 2011. Sd/-V.RAMKUMAR, JUDGE ani/ /true copy/ P.S. to Judge B.A. No. 21 of 2011 -:4:-