IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Bail Appl..No. 587 of 2011()
1. LOHI SIDDIQUE @ ABOOBACKER SIDDIQUE
... Petitioner
2. USMAN @ MOHAMMED USMAN,
3. DAVOOD HAKKIM K.M.,AGED 28 YEARS,
4. JAPPU @ ABDUL RAHIMAN,AGED 23 YEARS,
5. SALMAN @ SALMAN FAROOK,AGED 22 YEARS,
6. ASHIF @ MOAMMED ASHIF, AGED 22 YEARS
Vs
1. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE
... Respondent
2. STATE REP.BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
For Petitioner :SRI.T.G.RAJENDRAN
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.RAMKUMAR
Dated :28/01/2011
O R D E R
V. RAMKUMAR, J.
.........................................
B.A. No.587 of 2011
..........................................
Dated this the 28th day of January, 2011
ORDER
Petitioners, who are accused Nos.1 to 3,5,7 and 8 in Crime
No.26/2011 of Kumbla Police Station for offences punishable
under Sections 143,147,148,324 and 308 read with 149 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 Officer for the purpose of interrogation and then to
have their application for bail considered by the Magistrate or
B.A. No. 587/2011 -:2:-
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 on the same day or the next day. 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 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
B.A. No. 587/2011 -:3:-
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 28th day of January, 2011.
V.RAMKUMAR, JUDGE
sj
