Dinesh Kumar vs State Of Kerala on 4 February, 2011

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Bail Appl..No. 614 of 2011()


1. DINESH KUMAR, AGED 32 YEARS, S/O.SOMON,
                      ...  Petitioner
2. DILEEP KUMAR, AGED 28 YEARS, S/O.SOMON,
3. SANTHAMMA, AGED 55, W/O.SOMON,

                        Vs



1. STATE OF KERALA,
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.C.RAJENDRAN

                For Respondent  :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.RAMKUMAR

 Dated :04/02/2011

 O R D E R
                          V. RAMKUMAR, J.
                    .........................................
                       B.A. No. 614 of 2011
                    ..........................................
           Dated this the 4th day of February, 2011.

                                  ORDER

Petitioners who are accused Nos.1 to 3 in Crime No. 1382

of 2010 of Ezhukone Police Station for offences punishable

under Sections 498A and 306 r/w Section 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 (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 petitioners. But at the same time, I am

inclined to permit the petitioners to surrender before the

B.A. No.614/2011

2

Investigating Officer for the purpose of interrogation and then to

have their application for bail considered by the Magistrate or

the Court having jurisdiction. Accordingly, the petitioners

shall surrender before the investigating officer on 16.02.2011

or on 17.02.2011 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 petitioners 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 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

petitioners are without arresting them, the petitioners shall

thereafter appear before the Magistrate or the Court concerned

and apply for regular bail on the same day or the next day. The

Magistrate or the Court on being satisfied that the petitioners

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.

B.A. No.614/2011

3

4. In case the 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 petitioners .

This petition is disposed of as above.

Dated this the 4th day of February, 2011.

V.RAMKUMAR, JUDGE.

rv

B.A. No.614/2011

4