IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Bail Appl..No. 7935 of 2010()
1. LAJIN, S/O. GOPALAKRISHNAEN,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.K.V.ANIL KUMAR
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.RAMKUMAR
Dated :09/12/2010
O R D E R
V.RAMKUMAR, J.
------------------------------------
Bail Application No. 7935 of 2010
------------------------------------------
Dated this the 9th day of December, 2010
ORDER
Petitioner, who is accused No.1 in Crime No.963 of 2010 of
Pooyappally Police Station for an offence punishable under
Section 498-A 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 considered by the Magistrate or the
Court having jurisdiction. Accordingly, the petitioner shall
surrender before the investigating officer on 20.12.2010 or on
21.12.2010 for the purpose of interrogation and recovery of
B.A.No.7935/2010 2
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, consider and dispose of his
application for regular bail preferably on the same date on
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
B.A.No.7935/2010 3
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.
V.RAMKUMAR, JUDGE
ln
B.A.No.7935/2010 4
B.A.No.7935/2010 5
V.RAMKUMAR, JUDGE
ln