Radha Harikumar vs State Of Kerala Represented By The on 11 February, 2011

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Bail Appl..No. 917 of 2011()


1. RADHA HARIKUMAR, W/O.HARI KUMAR,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.B.MOHANLAL

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.RAMKUMAR

 Dated :11/02/2011

 O R D E R
                          V. RAMKUMAR, J.
                    .........................................
                       B.A. No. 917 of 2011
                    ..........................................
           Dated this th 11th day of February, 2011.

                                        ORDER

Petitioner who is the accused in Crime No.3278 of 2010 of

Kottarakkara Police Station, Kollam for offences punishable under

Sections 417 and 420 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

B.A. No. 917/2011 2

Officer for the purpose of interrogation and then to have her

application for bail considered by the Magistrate or the Court

having jurisdiction. Accordingly, the petitioner shall surrender

before the investigating officer on 23.02.2011 or on 24.02.2011

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 her, 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

B.A. No. 917/2011 3

the petitioner has been interrogated by the police shall, after

hearing the prosecution as well, consider and dispose of her

application for regular bail preferably on the same date on

which it is filed.

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 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 .

This petition is disposed of as above.

Dated this the 11th day of February, 2011.

V.RAMKUMAR, JUDGE

rv