High Court Kerala High Court

Muhammed Ali vs State Of Kerala on 1 February, 2011

Kerala High Court
Muhammed Ali vs State Of Kerala on 1 February, 2011
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Bail Appl..No. 575 of 2011()


1. MUHAMMED ALI, AGED 38 YEARS,
                      ...  Petitioner
2. ASHRAF, AGED 35 YEARS,
3. SHAFI, AGED 25 YEARS,
4. MUNEER @ BAPPU, AGED 25 YEARS,

                        Vs



1.  STATE OF KERALA,
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.M.ASOKAN

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.RAMKUMAR

 Dated :01/02/2011

 O R D E R
                          V. RAMKUMAR, J.
                    .........................................
                       B.A. No. 575 of 2011
                    ..........................................
            Dated this the 1st day of February, 2011.

                                  ORDER

Petitioners who are accused Nos.5 to 8 in Crime No. 370 of

2010 of Kodencherry Police Station, Kozhikode for offences

punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 332, 395 and 307 read

with Section 149 I.P.C. and Section 20 read with Section 27 of the

Arms Act, 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

B.A. No. 575/2011

2

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 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

B.A. No. 575/2011

3

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

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 1st day of February, 2011.

V.RAMKUMAR, JUDGE

rv

B.A. No. 575/2011

4