IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Bail Appl..No. 359 of 2011()
1. MAHIN,S/O.AMEER, ADHEENA MANZIL,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.C.RAJENDRAN
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.RAMKUMAR
Dated :24/01/2011
O R D E R
V. RAMKUMAR, J.
.........................................
B.A. No.359 of 2011
..........................................
Dated this the 24th day of January, 2011
ORDER
Petitioner, who is the sole accused in Crime No.820 of 2010
of Pallithottam Police Station for offences punishable under
Sections 452,323,324,427 and 394 read with 34 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 (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 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
B.A.No.359 /2011 -:2:-
have his application for bail allowed by the Magistrate or the
Court having jurisdiction. Accordingly, the petitioner shall
surrender before the investigating officer on 04.02.2011 or on
05.02.2011 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 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. The Magistrate or the Court on being satisfied that
the petitioner has been interrogated by the police shall, after
hearing the prosecution as well, release the petitioner on bail.
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
B.A.No.359 /2011 -:3:-
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.
5. The release of the petitioner shall be on the
petitioner 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 petitioner shall report before the
Investigating Officer between 9 a.m. and 11 a.m. on all
Wednesdays.
2. The petitioner shall make himself available for
interrogation including custodial interrogation as and
when required by the Investigating Officer.
3. Petitioner shall not influence or intimidate the
prosecution witnesses nor shall he attempt to tamper
with the evidence for the prosecution.
B.A.No.359 /2011 -:4:-
4. Petitioner shall not commit any offence while on
bail.
5. If the petitioner commits breach of any of the above
conditions, the bail granted to him shall be liable to be
cancelled.
This petition is disposed of as above.
Dated this the 24th day of January, 2011.
V.RAMKUMAR, JUDGE
sj