IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR WEDNESDAY, THE 30TH MARCH 2011 / 9TH CHAITHRA 1933 Bail Appl..No. 2358 of 2011() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.187/2011 OF GANDHINAGAR POLICE STATION, KOTTAYAM PETITIONERS/ACCUSED: ---------------------- 1. RADHAKRISHNAN, AGED 50 YEARS, S/O.NEELAKANTAN, KANIYAMPARAMBIL, PERUMBAIKADU P.O., ARTHIYAKULAM, KOTTAYAM. 2. KANNAN.K.D., AGED 20 YEARS, S/O.RADHAKRISHNAN, KANIYAMPARAMBIL, PERUMBAIKADU P.O., ARTHIYAKULAM, KOTTAYAM. 3. SANJU.K.R., AGED 17 YEARS, S/O.RADHAKRISHNAN, KANIYAMPRAMBIL, PERUMBAIKADU P.O., ARTHIYAKULAM, KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.S.RAJEEV SRI.K.K.DHEERENDRAKRISHNAN RESPONDENT: COMPLAINANT: --------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM (CRIME NO.187/2011 OF GANDHI NAGAR POLICE STATION, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.) PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.M.S.BREEZE THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V.RAMKUMAR, J. --------------------------------------------------- Bail Application No.2358 of 2011 ----------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 30th day of March, 2011 ORDER Petitioners, who are the accused in Crime No.187 of 2011 of Gandhinagar Police Station, Kottayam for offences punishable under Sections 341, 506(i), 326 & 308 read with Section 34 I.P.C., seek anticipatory bail. 2. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that petitioners 1 & 3 are accused Nos.1 & 2 respectively and the second petitioner is not an accused. If so, the apprehension of arrest entertained by the second petitioner is unfounded and his request for anticipatory bail is rejected. 3. After evaluating the factors and parameters which are to be taken into consideration in the light of 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 interrogating the first and third petitioners (A1 & A2). But at the same time, I am inclined to permit the first and third petitioners (A1 & A2) to surrender before the Investigating Officer for the purpose of interrogation and then Bail Appln.No.2358/2011 : 2 : to have their application for bail considered by the Magistrate or the Court having jurisdiction. Accordingly, the first and third petitioners (A1 & A2) are directed to surrender before the investigating officer on 11/04/2011 or on 12/04/2011 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 first and third petitioners (A1 & A2) 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 first and third petitioners (A1 & A2) 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 first and third petitioners (A1 & A2) is without arresting them, the first and third petitioners (A1 & A2) 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 first and third petitioners (A1 & A2) 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. Bail Appln.No.2358/2011 : 3 : 4. In case the first and third petitioners (A1 & A2) 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 first and third petitioners (A1 & A2). 5. It shall be open to the 3rd petitioner (A2) to convince the Investigating Officer as well as the Magistrate that he is a juvenile liable to be dealt with under the provisions of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000. This petition is disposed of as above. Dated this the 30th day of March, 2011. V.RAMKUMAR, JUDGE skj