John Panicker vs State Of Kerala on 7 December, 2010

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Bail Appl..No. 7901 of 2010()


1. JOHN PANICKER,S/O.GEEVARGHESE PANICKER,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY PUBLIC
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.S.SREEKUMAR

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.RAMKUMAR

 Dated :07/12/2010

 O R D E R
                           V. RAMKUMAR, J.
                     .........................................
                        B.A. No.7901 of 2010
                     ..........................................
             Dated this the 7th day of December, 2010

                                   ORDER

Petitioner, who is the 5th accused in Crime No.2709/2010 of

Kottarakkara Police Station for offences punishable under Sections

379 and 120-B read with Section 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

(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 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.7901/2010 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 who on being satisfied that the

petitioner has been interrogated by the police shall consider and

dispose of his application for regular bail preferably on the same date

on which it is filed. In case the interrogation of the petitioner is

without arresting him, the petitioner shall thereafter appear before

the Magistrate and apply for regular bail. The Magistrate on being

satisfied that the petitioner has been interrogated by the police shall

consider and dispose of his application for regular bail preferably on

the same date on which it is filed.

This petition is disposed of as above.

V.RAMKUMAR, JUDGE

ln