IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Bail Appl..No. 739 of 2011()
1. JINAD @ LINAD, AGED 20 YEARS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA,
... Respondent
2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
For Petitioner :SRI.K.ABDUL JAWAD
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.RAMKUMAR
Dated :08/02/2011
O R D E R
V. RAMKUMAR, J.
---------------------------------------------------
Bail Application No.739 of 2011
----------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 8th day of February, 2011
ORDER
Petitioner, who is accused No.1 in Crime No.155 of 2011 of
Karunagappally Police Station for offences punishable under
Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 324, 326, 308 & 323 read with
Section 149 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 Court having jurisdiction.
Accordingly, the petitioner shall surrender before the
B.A.No.739/2011
-:2:-
investigating officer on 21/02/2011 or on 22/02/2011 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.
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 on the same
day or the next day. 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
B.A.No.739/2011
-:3:-
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.
V.RAMKUMAR, JUDGE
skj