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


Kerala High Court
Prakash vs State on 17 December, 2010
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Bail Appl..No. 8096 of 2010(P)


1. PRAKASH, AGED 30 YEARS,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. STATE.
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.M.T.SURESHKUMAR

                For Respondent  :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.RAMKUMAR

 Dated :17/12/2010

 O R D E R
                       V. RAMKUMAR, J.
                 ===================
                    B.A. No. 8096 of 2010
                ====================
         Dated this the 17th day of December, 2010.

                             ORDER

Petitioner who is the accused in Crime No. 990 of 2010 of

Pathanamthitta Police Station for an offence punishable under

Section 379 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 (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 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 allowed by the Magistrate or the

Court having jurisdiction. Accordingly, the petitioner shall

B.A. No. 8096/2010 -:2:-

surrender before the investigating officer on 27.12.2010 or on

28.12.2010 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 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. The Magistrate or the Court on being satisfied that

the petitioner has been interrogated by the police shall, after

hearing the prosecution as well, release the petitioner on bail.

4. In case the accused while surrendering before the

Investigating Officer has 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

B.A. No. 8096/2010 -:3:-

will not be bound by the time limit fixed as above if sufficient

time was not available after the production or appearance of

the accused .

5. The release of the petitioner shall be on the

petitioner executing a bond for `15,000/- (Rupees fifteen

thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like amount

to the satisfaction of the Court concerned and subject to the

following conditions:-

1. The petitioner shall report before the

Investigating Officer between 9 a.m. and 11 a.m. on all

Wednesdays.

2. The petitioner shall make himself available for

interrogation including custodial interrogation as and

when required by the Investigating Officer.

3. Petitioner shall not influence or intimidate the

prosecution witnesses nor shall he attempt to tamper

with the evidence for the prosecution.

4. Petitioner shall not commit any offence while on

bail.

B.A. No. 8096/2010 -:4:-

5. If the petitioner commits breach of any of the above

conditions, the bail granted to them shall be liable to

be cancelled.

This petition is disposed of as above.

Dated this the 17th day of December, 2010.

V.RAMKUMAR, JUDGE.

rv


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 0.102 seconds.