IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Bail Appl..No. 125 of 2011()
1. AMBADY S., S/O.SURENDRAN,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.B.MOHANLAL
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.RAMKUMAR
Dated :14/01/2011
O R D E R
V. RAMKUMAR, J.
.........................................
B.A. No.125 of 2011
..........................................
Dated this the 14th day of January,2011
ORDER
Petitioner, who is the 2nd accused in Crime No.1333/2010 of
Killikollur Police Station for offences punishable under Sections
341,323,324,308 and 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
have his application for bail considered by the Magistrate or the
Court having jurisdiction. Accordingly, the petitioner shall
B.A. No.125 /2011 -:2:-
surrender before the investigating officer on 24.01.2011 or on
25.01.2011 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 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 or 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 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
B.A. No.125 /2011 -:3:-
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 14th day of January, 2011
V.RAMKUMAR, JUDGE
sj