IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Bail Appl..No. 204 of 2011()
1. SHAJITH, S/O. ABDUL KHADAR,
... Petitioner
2. BHADERSHAN, S/O.ASHRAF, AGED 20 YEARS,
3. AJINAAZ, S/O. IBRAHIM, AGED 19 YEARS,
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SUB
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.RAJIT
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.RAMKUMAR
Dated :17/01/2011
O R D E R
V. RAMKUMAR, J.
---------------------------------------------------
Bail Application No.204 of 2011
----------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 17th day of January, 2011
ORDER
The petitioners, who are accused Nos.3, 4 & 2 in Crime
No.602 of 2010 of Kasaba Police Station, Kozhikode for offences
punishable under Sections 365 & 323 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
(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 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.
Accordingly, the petitioners shall surrender before the
Bail.Appln.No.204/2011
-:2:-
investigating officer on 28/01/2011 or on 29/01/2011 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 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 complete the
interrogation even if it is beyond the time limit fixed as above
Bail.Appln.No.204/2011
-:3:-
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.
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.204/2011
-: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.
V.RAMKUMAR, JUDGE
skj