Posted On by &filed under High Court, Kerala High Court.


Kerala High Court
Basil Baby vs State Of Kerala on 20 December, 2010
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Bail Appl..No. 8234 of 2010()


1. BASIL BABY, AGED 20 YEARS,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. STATE OF KERALA,
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.NIREESH MATHEW

                For Respondent  :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.RAMKUMAR

 Dated :20/12/2010

 O R D E R
                          V. RAMKUMAR, J.
                 .........................................
                        B.A. No.8234 of 2010
                ..........................................
             Dated this the 20th day of December, 2010

                                    ORDER

Petitioner, who is the sole accused in Crime No.964/2010 of

Valappad Police Station, Thrissur District for offences

punishable under Sections 341,323 and 308 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

B.A. No.8234 /2010 -:2:-

Court having jurisdiction. Accordingly, the petitioner shall

surrender before the investigating officer on 30.12.2010 or on

31.12.2010 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 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 petitioner while surrendering before

the Investigating Officer has deprived the investigating

B.A. No.8234 /2010 -:3:-

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 petitioner.

This petition is disposed of as above.

Dated this the 20th day of December, 2010.

V.RAMKUMAR, JUDGE

sj


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

66 queries in 0.121 seconds.