IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN MONDAY, THE 22ND AUGUST 2011 / 31ST SRAVANA 1933 Bail Appl..No. 6338 of 2011() ----------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN BA.4673/2011 Crime No.213 of 2011 of Puthenkuriz Police Station .................... PETITIONER/ACCUSED ------------------------------ RAMESH A.S., AGED 48 YEARS, S/O. SIVASANKARAN NAIR, AKKATTU SREE VIHAR, KAITHAKKATTU KARA, PATTIMATTOM P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.S.ARUN KUMAR SMT.M.N.MAYA RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT -------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY P.P.SRI.V.MANU THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. --------------------------------- B.A. No.6338 OF 2011 --------------------------------- Dated this the 22nd day of August, 2011 ORDER The petitioner filed B.A.No.4673 of 2011 for anticipatory bail apprehending arrest in Crime No.213 of 2011 of Puthenkuriz Police Station. That Bail Application was disposed of by the order dated 29th June,2011 which reads as follows: “Petitioner seeks anticipatory bail on the allegation that the Puthenkuriz police are at his heels in connection with Crime No.213 of 2011 of Puthenkuriz Police Station. 2. The learned Public Prosecutor, on instructions, submitted that the petitioner is only a suspect in the above crime and he has not so far been arrayed as an accused in the above case. If so, the apprehension of arrest and harassment entertained by the petitioner is unfounded. In case the petitioner is required to be interrogated again the police shall do so after giving him notice under Section 160 Cr.P.C. Recording the submission made by the Public Prosecutor, this Petition is closed.” 2. It is submitted that notice was issued to the petitioner under Section 160 of the Code of Criminal B.A. No.6338 OF 2011 2 Procedure and he appeared before the Investigating Officer. According to the petitioner, he was interrogated by the police. 3. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that on the date on which the petitioner was directed to appear, he could not be interrogated as the Police Officers had to attend to other duties on account of the visit of the Hon'ble Chief Minister in that area. The learned Public Prosecutor also submitted that for the purpose of interrogation, another notice will be issued to the petitioner under Section 160 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. This submission is recorded. No further orders are required in this Bail Application. Accordingly, the Bail Application is closed. The petitioner shall communicate a copy of the order to the Investigating Officer. K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE. cms