IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR MONDAY, THE 20TH DECEMBER 2010 / 29TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 Bail Appl..No. 8165 of 2010(A) ------------------------------------------ [CRIME NUMBER 792/2010 OF KALPATTA POLICE STATION, WAYANAD DISTRICT] ............ PETITIONER/ACCUSED: ---------------------------------- SMT.SHAMSEERA K.B., AGED 27 YEARS, W/O. MUHAMMED ASHRAF, KARUTHEDATH HOUSE, EDAKKARA P.O., NILAMBUR. BY ADV. SRI.P.V.GEORGE(PUTHIYIDAM). RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT: -------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, (DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM), REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KALPETTA POLICE STATION, KALPETTA, WAYANAD. 3. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, SULTHAN BATHERY POLICE STATION, SULTHAN BATHERY P.O. 4. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, EDAKKARA POLICE STATION, EDAKKARA P.O. R1 TO R4 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. C.K. SURESH. THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/12/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: prv. V. RAMKUMAR, J. ......................................... B.A. No. 8165 of 2010 .......................................... Dated this the 20th day of December, 2010. ORDER Petitioner who is the 8th accused in Crime No. 792 of 2010 of Kalpetta Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 419, 420, 465, 468 and 471 I.P.C., 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 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 petitioner. But at the same time, I am inclined B.A. No. 8165/2010 : 2: to permit the petitioner to surrender before the Investigating Officer for the purpose of interrogation and then to have her application for bail considered by the Magistrate or the Court having jurisdiction. Accordingly, the petitioner shall surrender before the investigating officer on 10.01.2011 or on 11.01.2011 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 petitioner is imperative she shall record her 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 her, the petitioner shall thereafter appear before the Magistrate or the Court concerned and apply for regular bail. The Magistrate or B.A. No. 8165/2010 : 3: 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 her application for regular bail preferably on the same date on which it is filed. 4. In case the accused 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 accused . This petition is disposed of as above. Dated this the 20th day of December, 2010. V.RAMKUMAR, JUDGE rv B.A. No. 8165/2010 : 4: