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. 7887 of 2010() ----------------------------------------- ( CRIME NO. 1144/2010 OF POOYAPPALLY POLICE STATION, KOLLAM DISTRICT) ----------------------- PETITIONER/ACCUSED 2 & 5 ------------------------------------------ 1. SANCHO C.BABY, PALLIVADAKKETHIL, POOYAPPALLY, KOLLAM, 2. LIBIN RAJU, RATTUVILA PUTHENVEEDU, POOYAPPALLY, KOLLAM BY ADV. SRI.SAJU.S.A RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. C.S HRITHWIK 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. 7887 of 2010 .......................................... Dated this the 7th day of December, 2010 ORDER Petitioners, who are accused Nos.2 and 5 in Crime No.1144/2010 of Pooyappilly Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 353 and 149 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 (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 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 having jurisdiction. Accordingly, the petitioners shall surrender before the investigating officer on 17.12.2010 or on 18.12.2010 for the purpose of interrogation and recovery of B.A.No.7887/2010 2 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 are 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 petitioners have been interrogated by the police shall consider and dispose of their application for regular bail preferably on the same date on which it is filed. In case the interrogation of the petitioners are without arresting him, the petitioners shall thereafter appear before the Magistrate and apply for regular bail. The Magistrate on being satisfied that the petitioners have been interrogated by the police shall consider and dispose of their 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