IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR TUESDAY, THE 7TH DECEMBER 2010 / 16TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 Appl..No. 7878 of 2010() ----------------------------- (CRIME NO.1099/2010 OF VARKALA POLICE STATION) --------------- PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 TO 4 ---------------------------------------------- 1. ANSHAD, MANGALATHU VEEDU, VETTAKKADA, EDAVA, VARKALA. 2. SHAMSEED, VETTAKKADA, ALAPPURAM, EDAVA, VARKALA. 3. NOUFAL, THANNIYIL, VETTAKKADA, EDAVA, VARKALA. 4. KASMI, PADIYATHU HOUSE, VETTAKKADA, EDAVA, VARKALA. BY ADV. SRI.M.TRIPTEN RESPONDENT/ COMPLAINANT -------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VARKALA POLICE STATION, THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 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: VK V. RAMKUMAR, J. ......................................... B.A. No. 7878 of 2010 .......................................... Dated this the 7th day of December, 2010 ORDER Petitioners, who are accused Nos.1 to 4 in Crime No.1099/2010 of Varkala Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 452, 323, 324 and 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 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 B.A.No.7878/2010 2 have their application for bail allowed 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 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 and permitted to file an application for regular bail. In case the interrogation of the petitioners are without arresting them, 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 release the petitioners on bail on each of the petitioners executing a bond for Rs.15,000/- (Rupees fifteen thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like amount to the satisfaction of the Magistrate and subject to the following conditions:- B.A.No.7878/2010 3 1. The petitioners shall report before the Investigating Officer between 9 a.m. and 11 a.m. on all Wednesdays. 2. The petitioners shall make themselves available for interrogation including custodial interrogation as and when required by the Investigating Officer. 3. Petitioners shall not influence or intimidate the prosecution witnesses nor shall they attempt to tamper with the evidence for the prosecution. 4. Petitioners shall not commit any offence while on bail. 5. If the petitioners commits breach of any of the above conditions, the bail granted to them shall be liable to be cancelled. This petition is disposed of as above. V.RAMKUMAR, JUDGE ln