TONY, HEJO, VINESH Vs. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners who are accused Nos. 3 to 5 in Crime No.71 of2011 of Kattoor Police Station for offences punishable underSections 148, 452, 506(ii), 324, 308 and 427 r/w Section 149I.P.C., seek anticipatory bail.

(2.) The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application.

(3.) After evaluating the factors and parameters which are to betaken into consideration in the light of paragraph 122 of theverdict dated 2-12-2010 of the Apex Court in Siddharam SatlingappaMhetre v. State of Maharashtra and Others, 2010 4 KerLT 930 I amof the view that anticipatory bail cannot be granted in a case ofthis nature, since the investigating officer has not had theadvantage of interrogating the petitioners. But at the same time, Iam inclined to permit the petitioners to surrender before theInvestigating Officer for the purpose of interrogation and then tohave their application for bail allowed by the Magistrate or theCourt having jurisdiction. Accordingly, the petitioners shallsurrender before the investigating officer on 28.02.2011 or on01.03.2011 for the purpose of interrogation and recovery ofincriminating material, if any. In case the investigating officeris of the view that having regard to the facts of the case arrestof the petitioners is imperative he shall record his reasons forthe arrest in the case diary as insisted in paragraph 129 ofSiddharam Satlingappa Mhetre's case (supra). The petitioners shallthereafter be produced before the Magistrate or the Court concernedand permitted to file an application for regular bail. In case theinterrogation of the petitioners is without arresting them, thepetitioners shall thereafter appear before the Magistrate or theCourt concerned and apply for regular bail. The Magistrate or theCourt on being satisfied that the petitioners have beeninterrogated by the police shall, after hearing the prosecution aswell, release the petitioners on bail.