IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Bail Appl..No. 8783 of 2010()
1. RAJESH
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA,REP.BY THE P.P.
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.A.KRISHNAN
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.RAMKUMAR
Dated :05/01/2011
O R D E R
V. RAMKUMAR, J.
.........................................
B.A. No. 8783 of 2010
..........................................
Dated: 5th January, 2011
ORDER
Petitioner who is the sole accused in Crime No. 411 of
2010 of Kalpakancherry Police Station for an offence punishable
under Sec. 376 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 Officer for the
purpose of interrogation and then to have his application for bail
considered by the Magistrate or the Court having jurisdiction.
Accordingly, the petitioner shall surrender before the
investigating officer on 15-01-2011 or on 17-01-2011 for the
purpose of interrogation and recovery of incriminating material,
if any. In case the investigating officer is of the view that having
B.A. No. 8783 of 2010 -:2:-
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, consider and dispose
of his application for regular bail preferably on the same date
on which it is filed.
4. In case the petitioner 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
petitioner .
This petition is disposed of as above.
Dated this the 5th day of January, 2011.
Sd/-V.RAMKUMAR, JUDGE
ani/ /true copy/
P.S. to Judge
B.A. No. 8783 of 2010 -:3:-