Maheendra, and anr. Vs. State of Kerala, and anr. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:

[markandey katju ; gyan sudha misra, jj.] - code of civil procedure(cpc), 1908 - order 21 rule 90 - sale of immovable property -- one b. chandrasekhara reddy, the predecessor of the respondents herein filed suit no.23 of 1992 before the subordinate judge, gooty against the appellant herein for recovery of an amount of rs.26,720/- being the principal amount and interest due on a pronote dated 3.4.1991 executed by the appellant herein for rs.24,000/- payable with interest at 12% per annum. it is alleged that the property was worth of rs.15 lacs but was sold for rs.3,15,000/- to realize the decretal amount of rs.40,364/-. the appellant herein filed an application under order 21 rule 90 c.p.c. to set aside the sale of property. that application was dismissed by the trial court. a civil revision petition no.1423 of 1998 was filed by the appellant in the high court against that order. the high court by order dated 10.04.1998 gave an opportunity to the judgment debtor to pay the decretal amount. it is alleged that on 16.4.1998 in pursuance of the high court order dated 10.4.1998 the appellant herein deposited the decretal amount. however, on 22.7.1998 the executing court dismissed the..........under sections 420 and 506(1) 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 (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 the petitioners to surrender before the investigating officer for the purpose of interrogation and then to have their application for bail allowed by the magistrate having jurisdiction. 4. accordingly, the petitioners shall surrender before the investigating officer on 17.12.2010 or on 18.12.2010 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 are imperative he shall record his reasons for the arrest in the case diary as insisted.....

Judgment:

1. Petitioners, who are accused Nos.1 and 2 in Crime No.463/2010 of Kareelakulangara Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 420 and 506(1) 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 (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 the petitioners to surrender before the Investigating Officer for the purpose of interrogation and then to have their application for bail allowed by the Magistrate having jurisdiction.

4. Accordingly, the petitioners shall surrender before the investigating officer on 17.12.2010 or on 18.12.2010 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 are 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 and permitted to file an application for regular bail. In case the interrogation of the petitioners are without arresting them, the petitioners shall thereafter appear before the Magistrate and apply for regular bail. The Magistrate on being satisfied that the petitioners have been interrogated by the police shall release the petitioners on bail on each of 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 Magistrate 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.

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 petitioner commits 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.