High Court Kerala High Court

Shaji vs State Of Kerala on 9 December, 2010

Kerala High Court
Shaji vs State Of Kerala on 9 December, 2010
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Bail Appl..No. 7962 of 2010()


1. SHAJI,S/O.VARGHESE, SHAJI NIVAS,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY THE
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.R.V.SREEJITH

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.RAMKUMAR

 Dated :09/12/2010

 O R D E R
                         V.RAMKUMAR, J.
                   ------------------------------------
               Bail Application No. 7962 of 2010
              -----------------------------------------------
           Dated this the 9th day of December, 2010

                                ORDER

Petitioner, who is the sole accused in Crime No.562/2010

of Vilappilsala Police Station for an offence punishable under

Section 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 (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 considered by the Magistrate or the

Court having jurisdiction. Accordingly, the petitioner shall

surrender before the investigating officer on 20.12.2010 or on

B.A.No.7962/2010 2

21.12.2010 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, 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

B.A.No.7962/2010 3

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.

V.RAMKUMAR, JUDGE

ln