Kerala High Court
Mr. Indramohan Sahadevan vs State Of Kerala on 4 April, 2011
Author: V.Ramkumar
Bench: V.Ramkumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Bail Appl..No. 1047 of 2011()
1. MR. INDRAMOHAN SAHADEVAN, M/A 42 YEARS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, THROUGH STATION HOUSE
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.M.A.JOSEPH MANAVALAN
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.RAMKUMAR
Dated :04/04/2011
O R D E R
V. RAMKUMAR, J.
----------------------------------------
Bail Application No. 1047 of 2011
----------------------------------------
Dated: 04-04-2011
ORDER
Petitioner who is the 4th accused in Crime No. 4 of 2011 of Cyber Crime Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram for offences punishable under Sections 109, 120 B, 408 read with Sec. 34 and Sec. 43 of I.P.C. and Secs. 65 and 66 of Information Technology Act, Sec. 63 of Copyright 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 in the light of paragraph 122 of the verdict 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 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 considered by the Magistrate or the Court having jurisdiction. Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to surrender before the investigating officer on 16-4-2011 or on 18-4-2011. 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 Bail Application No. 1047 of 2011 -:2:- the case-diary as insisted in paragraph 129 of Siddharam'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 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, consider and dispose of his application for regular bail preferably on the same date on which it is filed.
4. In case the petitioner while surrendering before the Investigating Officer has deprived the investigating 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 petitioner .
This petition is disposed of as above.
Dated this the 4th day of March, 2011.
V.RAMKUMAR, JUDGE ani/ Bail Application No. 1047 of 2011 -:3:-