IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Bail Appl..No. 8214 of 2010()
1. SURENDRAN P.K., S/O.KOCHUPILLAI,
... Petitioner
2. SAJEEV.K.D., S/O.DEVARAJAN,AGED 40,
3. RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR, S/O.VASUDEVAN NAIR,
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.S.SREEKUMAR
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. 8214 of 2010
========================
Dated this the 17th day of December, 2010.
ORDER
Petitioners who are the accused in Crime No.1064 of 2010
of Alappuzha North Police Station for offences punishable under
Sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 452, 341, 323 and 506(1) I.P.C.,
seek anticipatory bail.
2. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the 3rd
petitioner is not an accused in the above crime. If so, his
apprehension of arrest and harassment is unfounded and his
application for anticipatory bail is rejected.
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 petitioners. But at the same time, I am
inclined to permit petitioners 1 and 2 to surrender before the
B.A. No. 8214/2010 -:2:-
Investigating Officer for the purpose of interrogation and then to
have their application for bail allowed by the Magistrate or the
Court having jurisdiction. Accordingly, petitioners 1 and 2
shall 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 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
petitioners 1 and 2 is without arresting them, the said
petitioners shall thereafter appear before the Magistrate or the
Court concerned and apply for regular bail. The Magistrate or
the Court on being satisfied that petitioners 1 and 2 have been
interrogated by the police shall, after hearing the prosecution as
well, release the said petitioners on bail.
4. In case petitioners 1 and 2 while surrendering before
the Investigating Officer have deprived the investigating
B.A. No. 8214/2010 -:3:-
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 .
5. The release of petitioners 1 and 2 shall be on each
the petitioners executing a bond for Rs. 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. Petitioners 1 and 2 shall report before the
Investigating Officer between 9 a.m. and 11 a.m. on all
Wednesdays.
2. Petitioners 1 and 2 shall make themselves available
for interrogation including custodial interrogation as
and when required by the Investigating Officer.
3. Petitioners 1 and 2 shall not influence or
intimidate the prosecution witnesses nor shall they
B.A. No. 8214/2010 -:4:-
attempt to tamper with the evidence for the prosecution.
4. Petitioners 1 and 2 shall not commit any offence
while on bail.
5. If petitioners 1 and 2 commit 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
