IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Bail Appl..No. 350 of 2011()
1. BINU MATHEW,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA,
... Respondent
2. THE SUB INSEPCTOR OF POLICE,
For Petitioner :SRI.P.HARIDAS
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.RAMKUMAR
Dated :24/01/2011
O R D E R
V. RAMKUMAR, J.
.........................................
Bail Application No. 350 of 2011
..........................................
Dated: 24-01-2011
ORDER
Petitioner who is the first accused in Crime No. 326 of 2010
of Thiruvalla Police Station for an offence punishable under
Section 466 read with Sec. 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
B.A. No. 350 of 2011 -:2:-
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 4-2-2011 or on 5-02-2011 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 on the same day or the next
day. 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.
B.A. No. 350 of 2011 -:3:-
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 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 24th day of January, 2011.
V.RAMKUMAR, JUDGE
B.A. No. 350 of 2011 -:4:-
ani/