High Court Kerala High Court

Joseph @ Joseph vs State Of Kerala on 10 December, 2010

Kerala High Court
Joseph @ Joseph vs State Of Kerala on 10 December, 2010
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Bail Appl..No. 8006 of 2010()


1. JOSEPH @ JOSEPH,
                      ...  Petitioner
2. V.D.JAMES,  S/O.DEVASSIA,
3. MATHEW @ ACHANKUNJU,
4. C.T.JOSE, S/O.THOMAS,

                        Vs



1. STATE OF KERALA,
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.P.K.VARGHESE

                For Respondent  :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.RAMKUMAR

 Dated :10/12/2010

 O R D E R
                        V.RAMKUMAR, J.
           ---------------------------------------------------
              Bail Application No.8006 of 2010
          -----------------------------------------------------
        Dated this the 10th day of December, 2010

                               ORDER

Petitioners, who are accused Nos.1 to 4 in Crime No.471

of 2010 of Nedumkandam Police Station for offences

punishable under Sections 120(B), 464, 465, 468 & 471 read

with Section 34 I.P.C., seek 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 petitioners. But at the

same time, I am inclined to permit the petitioners to

surrender before the Investigating Officer for the purpose of

interrogation and then to have their application for bail

allowed by the Magistrate or the Court having jurisdiction.

Bail Appln.No.8006/2010
: 2 :

Accordingly, the petitioners shall surrender before the

investigating officer on 20/12/2010 or on 21/12/2010 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

petitioners 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

petitioners 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 petitioners

is without arresting them, the petitioners 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 petitioners have been interrogated by the

police shall, after hearing the prosecution as well, release

the petitioners on bail.

4. In case the petitioners while surrendering before

the Investigating Officer have deprived the investigating

officer sufficient time for interrogation, the officer shall

Bail Appln.No.8006/2010
: 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 petitioners .

5. The release of the petitioners shall be on each

the petitioners 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 petitioners shall report before the

Investigating Officer between 9 a.m. and 11 a.m. on

all Wednesdays.

2. The petitioners shall make themselves available

for interrogation including custodial interrogation as

and when required by the Investigating Officer.

3. The petitioners shall not influence or intimidate

the prosecution witnesses nor shall they attempt to

tamper with the evidence for the prosecution.

Bail Appln.No.8006/2010
: 4 :

4. The petitioners shall not commit any offence

while on bail.

5. If the petitioners commit breach of any of the

above conditions, the bail granted to them shall be

liable to be cancelled.

This petition is disposed of as above.

Dated this the 10th day of December, 2010.

V.RAMKUMAR, JUDGE

skj