IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Bail Appl..No. 240 of 2011()
1. YOUSUF,AGED 58 YEARS,
... Petitioner
2. GAFOOR,
3. SAKEER,
4. SAMEER, S/O.YOUSUF, AGED 26 YEARS,
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.SANTHEEP ANKARATH
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.RAMKUMAR
Dated :18/01/2011
O R D E R
V. RAMKUMAR, J.
========================
B.A. No.240 of 2011
========================
Dated this the 18th day of January, 2011.
ORDER
Petitioners who are accused Nos. 1 to 4 in Crime No.687
of 2010 of Cheruthuruthi Police Station for offences punishable
under Sections 452, 323, 324, 427, 294(b) and 506(1) r/w
Section 34 I.P.C., seek 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 petitioners. But at the same time, I am
inclined to permit the petitioners to surrender before the
Investigating Officer for the purpose of interrogation and then to
B.A. No. 240/2011
2
have their application for bail allowed by the Magistrate or the
Court having jurisdiction. Accordingly, the petitioners shall
surrender before the investigating officer on 28.01.2011 or on
29.01.2011 for the purpose of interrogation and recovery of
incriminating material, if any. In case the investigating officer
is of the view that having 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 the petitioners is
without arresting them, the 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 the petitioners have been interrogated by the
police shall, after hearing the prosecution as well, release the
petitioners on bail.
4. In case the petitioners while surrendering before the
Investigating Officer have deprived the investigating officer
B.A. No. 240/2011
3
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.
5. The release of the petitioners shall be on each the
petitioners executing a bond for `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. The petitioners shall report before the
Investigating Officer between 9 a.m. and 11 a.m. on all
Wednesdays.
2. The petitioners shall make themselves available for
interrogation including custodial interrogation as and
when required by the Investigating Officer.
B.A. No. 240/2011
4
3. Petitioners shall not influence or intimidate the
prosecution witnesses nor shall they attempt to tamper
with the evidence for the prosecution.
4. Petitioners shall not commit any offence while on
bail.
5. If the petitioners 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 18th day of January, 2011.
V.RAMKUMAR, JUDGE.
rv
