SIBI S/O NILSON Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner, who is the sole accused in Crime No. 357 of 2011 of Chathannoor Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 51, 52-A, 63, 65 & 68-A of the Copy Right Act, 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 under paragraph 122 of the verdict of the Apex Court in Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra and Ors., 2010 4 KerLT 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 allowed by the Magistrate or the Court having jurisdiction. Accordingly, the Petitioner is directed to surrender before the investigating officer on 25/04/2011 or on 26/04/2011 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 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 on the same day or on the next day 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, release the Petitioner on bail.