Krishnadas vs State Of Kerala on 31 January, 2011

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Bail Appl..No. 548 of 2011()


1. KRISHNADAS, S/O.SAHADEVAN,
                      ...  Petitioner
2. BHAVAN PRASAD,

                        Vs



1. STATE OF KERALA,
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.K.P.SUDHEER

                For Respondent  :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.RAMKUMAR

 Dated :31/01/2011

 O R D E R
                       V. RAMKUMAR, J.
                    .........................................
                       B.A. No. 548 of 2011
                    ..........................................
           Dated this the 31st day of January, 2011.

                                  ORDER

Petitioners who are accused Nos.1 and 2 in Crime No.263

of 2010 of Tenhipalam Police Station for an offence punishable

under Section 420 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

B.A. No. 548/2011

2

Officer for the purpose of interrogation and then to have their

application for bail considered by the Magistrate or the Court

having jurisdiction. Accordingly, the petitioners shall surrender

before the investigating officer on 14.02.2011 or on 16.02.2011

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

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 on

the same day or the next day. The Magistrate or the Court on

being satisfied that the petitioners have been interrogated by the

B.A. No. 548/2011

3

police shall, after hearing the prosecution as well, consider and

dispose of their 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 31st day of January, 2011.

V.RAMKUMAR, JUDGE

rv

B.A. No. 548/2011

4