IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR FRIDAY, THE 16TH SEPTEMBER 2010 / 25TH BHADRA 1933 Bail Appl..No. 6685 of 2011() ----------------------------- AGAINST CRIME NO.640/2011 OF THE ANTHIKKAD POLICE STATION I THRISSUR DIST. ----------------- PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 TO 4 -------------------------------------------- 1. SMITH, S/O.SANKARANARAYANAN, AGED 36 YEARS, KAREPARAMBIL HOUSE KIZHAKKUMURI PO, PERINGOTTUKARA, THRISSUR DISTRICT 680 571. 2. VIVEK, S/O PRADEEP, AGED 23 YEARS THEKKIINIYETH HOUSE,PERINGOTTUKARA PO, THRISSUR DISTRICT 680 565. 3. VIGIL, S/O.BABU,AGED 24 YEARS THAZHATHUPURA HOUSE,KIZHAKKUMURI PO, PERINGOTTUKARA, THRISSUR DISTRICT 680 571. 4. SUMESH, S/O.SURESH,AGED 25 YEARS NADUMPARAMBIL HOUSE,PERINGOTTUKARA PO, THRISSUR DISTRICT 680565. BY ADV. SRI.M.R.DHANIL RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE ANTHIKKADU POLICE STATION, THRISSUR DIST, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM COCHIN 682 031. 2. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CHERPPU, THRISSUR DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM COCHIN 682 031. 3. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,THRISSUR REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM COCHIN 682 031. 4. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM COCHIN 682 031. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.SABU SREEDHARAN THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/09/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: VK V. RAMKUMAR, J. ......................................... Bail Application No. 6685 of 2011 .......................................... Dated: 16-09-2011 ORDER Petitioners who are accused Nos.1 to 4 in Crime No. 640 of 2011 of Anthikkad Police Station in Thrissur District for offences punishable under Sections 452, 323, 324 and 308 read with Sec. 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 112 of the verdict of the Apex Court in Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra and Others - (2011) 1 SCC 694 , 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. Accordingly, the petitioners are directed to surrender before the investigating officer on 29-09-2011 or on 30-09-2011 for the purpose of interrogation and recovery of incriminating material, if any. In case the petitioners are arrested by the Investigating Officer before interrogation, 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 B.A. No. 6685 of 2011 -:2:- is without arresting them, the petitioners shall thereafter appear before the Magistrate or the Court concerned on the same day or the next day 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. 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. Dated this the 16th day of September, 2011. V.RAMKUMAR, JUDGE ani/ B.A. No. 6685 of 2011 -:3:-