IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR TUESDAY, THE 1ST MARCH 2011 / 10TH PHALGUNA 1932 Bail Appl..No. 1269 of 2011() ----------------------------------------- CRIME NO.56/2011 OF PUNNAPRA POLICE STATION, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT -------------------------------- PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1,4,6 & 7: -------------------------------------------------- 1. SHIBU, AGED 28 YEARS, S/O.ANTONY, KALATHIL HOUSE, PUNNAPRA NORTH, ALAPPUZHA. 2. SURESH, AGED 23 YEARS, S/O.LATE KUMARAN KAKARIYIL HOUSE, PUNNAPRA NORTH, ALAPPUZHA. 3. SABU, AGED 28 YEARS, S/O.UMMACHAN, KATTUVELIYAKATHU, PUNNAPRA, ALAPPUZHA. 4. ANGEL, AGED 22 YEARS, S/O.SEBASTIAN, THAIPARAMBIL HOUSE, PUNNAPRA NORTH, ALAPPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.MATHEW JAMES RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT: --------------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PUNNAPRA POLICE STATION THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.C.S.HRITHWIK THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: sts V. RAMKUMAR, J. ----------------------------------------------- Bail Appln.No.1269 of 2011 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 1st day of March, 2011 ORDER Petitioners, who are accused Nos.1, 4, 6 & 7 in Crime No.56 of 2011 of Punnapra Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 452, 323, 324, 308, 427 & 294(b) read with Section 149 I.P.C., seek anticipatory bail. 2. Both sides agree that the second petitioner who is the 4th accused has since been arrested and subsequently released on bail by the Magistrate concerned. If so, the request for anticipatory bail by A4 has become infructuous and accordingly it is dismissed as infructuous. 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 B.A.No.1269/2011 -:2:- interrogating the 1st, 6th & 7th petitioners. But at the same time, I am inclined to permit the 1st, 6th & 7th petitioners to surrender before the Investigating Officer for the purpose of interrogation and then to have their application for bail allowed by the Magistrate or the Court having jurisdiction. Accordingly, the 1st, 6th & 7th petitioners are directed to surrender before the investigating officer on 07/03/2011 or on 11/03/2011 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 1st, 6th & 7th petitioners is imperative he shall record his reasons for the arrest in the case diary as insisted in paragraph 129 of Siddharam's case (supra). The 1st, 6th & 7th 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 1st, 6th & 7th petitioners is without arresting them, the 1st, 6th & 7th petitioners 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 1st, 6th & 7th petitioners have been interrogated by the police B.A.No.1269/2011 -:3:- shall, after hearing the prosecution as well, release the 1st, 6th & 7th petitioners on bail. 4. In case the 1st, 6th & 7th 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 accused. 5. The release of the 1st, 6th & 7th petitioners shall be on each of them executing a bond for `15,000/- (Rupees fifteen thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court concerned and subject to the following conditions:- 1. The 1st, 6th & 7th petitioners shall report before the Investigating Officer between 9 a.m. and 11 a.m. on all Wednesdays. 2. The 1st, 6th & 7th petitioners shall make themselves available for interrogation including custodial B.A.No.1269/2011 -:4:- interrogation as and when required by the Investigating Officer. 3. Before executing the bail bond each of the petitioners shall deposit a sum of `1,000/- (Rupees One thousand only) towards the loss sustained by the de facto complainant. 4. The 1st, 6th & 7th petitioners shall not influence or intimidate the prosecution witnesses nor shall they attempt to tamper with the evidence for the prosecution. 5. The 1st, 6th & 7th petitioners shall not commit any offence while on bail. 6. If the 1st, 6th & 7th petitioners commit 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. Dated this the 1st day of March, 2011. V.RAMKUMAR, JUDGE. skj