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


Kerala High Court
Surendran P.K. vs State Of Kerala Represented By on 17 December, 2010
       

  

  

 
 
  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


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 0.116 seconds.