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


Kerala High Court
Jeevan vs State Of Kerala on 20 December, 2010
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Bail Appl..No. 8253 of 2010()


1. JEEVAN, S/O.PODIYAN (RAJEEVAN),
                      ...  Petitioner
2. JEEMON, S/O.PODIYAN (RAJEEVAN),

                        Vs



1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.MATHEW JAMES

                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. 8253 of 2010
                    ..........................................
          Dated this the 20th day of December, 2010.

                                  ORDER

Petitioners who are the accused in Crime No. 703 of 2010 of

Ambalapuzha Police Station for offences punishable under

Sections 308, 326 and 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

B.A. No. 8253/2010 -:2:-

application for bail considered by the Magistrate or the Court

having jurisdiction. Accordingly, the petitioners 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 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 are 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, consider and dispose of their

B.A. No. 8253/2010 -:3:-

application for regular bail preferably on the same date on

which it is filed.

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

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 .

This petition is disposed of as above.

Dated this the 20th day of December, 2010.

V.RAMKUMAR, JUDGE
rv

B.A. No. 8253/2010 -:4:-


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 0.111 seconds.