IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Bail Appl..No. 8450 of 2010()
1. SHYAM NAIR, S/O.KESAVAN,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.S.RAJEEV
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.RAMKUMAR
Dated :03/01/2011
O R D E R
V. RAMKUMAR, J.
.........................................
B.A. No. 8450 of 2010
..........................................
Dated this the 3rd day of January, 2011.
ORDER
Petitioner who is the 4th accused in Crime No.247 of 2010
of Irinjalakuda Police Station for offences punishable under
Sections 406, 409 and 420 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 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
B.A. No.8450/2010 -:2:-
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 12.01.2011 or on 13.01.2011
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
B.A. No.8450/2010 -:3:-
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 accused 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 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 accused .
This petition is disposed of as above.
Dated this the 3rd day of January, 2011.
V.RAMKUMAR, JUDGE
rv
B.A. No.8450/2010 -:4:-
V. RAMKUMAR, J.
…………………………………..
B.A. No. of 2011
……………………………………
Dated this the 3rd day of January, 2011.
ORDER
Petitioner who is the accused in Crime No. Police
B.A. No.8450/2010 -:5:-
Station for offences punishable under Sections 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 surrender
before the investigating officer on ……….. or on …………… for the
B.A. No.8450/2010 -:6:-
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, consider and dispose
of his application for regular bail preferably on the same date
on which it is filed.
4. In case the accused while surrendering before the
B.A. No.8450/2010 -:7:-
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 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 accused .
This petition is disposed of as above.
Dated this the 3rd day of January, 2011.
V.RAMKUMAR, JUDGE
rv
B.A. No.8450/2010 -:8:-