IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Bail Appl..No. 8716 of 2010()
1. RATHEESH, S/O.KUTTIKRISHNAN,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.T.K.SANDEEP
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.RAMKUMAR
Dated :01/01/2011
O R D E R
V. RAMKUMAR, J.
.........................................
B.A. No. 8716 of 2010
..........................................
Dated: 7th January, 2011
ORDER
Petitioner who is the accused in Crime No. 1689 of 2010 of
Ernakulam Town North Police Station for offences punishable under
Sections 315 and 376 I.P.C. seeks 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 petitioner. But at the same time, I am
inclined to permit the petitioner to surrender before the Investigating
Officer for the purpose of interrogation and then to have his application
for bail allowed by the Magistrate or the Court having jurisdiction.
Accordingly, the petitioner shall surrender before the investigating
officer on 28-01-2011or on 29-01-2011 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
B.A.No. 8716 of 2010 -:2:-
the case arrest of the petitioner is 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 petitioner
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 petitioner is without arresting him, the
petitioner shall thereafter appear before the Magistrate or the Court
concerned and apply for regular bail on the same day of the next
day. The Magistrate or the Court on being satisfied that the petitioner
has been interrogated by the police shall, after hearing the prosecution
as well, consider and dispose of his application for regular bail
preferably on the same date of which it is filed.
4. In case the petitioner while surrendering before the
Investigating Officer has 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 petitioner .
This petition is disposed of as above.
Dated this the 7th day of January, 2011.
V.RAMKUMAR, JUDGE
ani/
B.A.No. 8716 of 2010 -:3:-
P.S. to Judge
