IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR MONDAY, THE 28TH FEBRUARY 2011 / 9TH PHALGUNA 1932 Bail Appl..No. 1361 of 2011() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.153/2011 OF HOSDURG POLICE STATION PETITIONERS:ACCUSED NOS.1 & 2 -------------------- 1. SUNIL KUMAR T.,RESIDING AT THEERTHANKARA HOUSE, P.O.PADNAKKAD. 2. PRAMEELA,W/O.UNNI PRAKASH , 32/11 RESIDING AT THEERTHANKARA HOUSE P.O.PADNAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.SUNNY MATHEW RESPONDENT: --------------- STATE OF KERALA THROUGH THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE HOSDURG POLICE STATION, KASARAGOD DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.C.S.HIRTHWIK THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR, J. ----------------------------------------------- Bail Appln.No.1361 of 2011 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 28th day of February, 2011 ORDER Second petitioner, who is the sole accused in Crime No.153 of 2011 of Hosdurg Police Station for an offence punishable under Section 498-A read with Section 34 I.P.C., seeks anticipatory bail. 2. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the first petitioner who is the husband of the deceased is not an accused in the case and that the second petitioner who is the sister-in-law of the deceased is the sole accused. If so, the request for anticipatory bail by the first petitioner is rejected. 3. After evaluating the factors and parameters which are to be taken into consideration under 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 second petitioner. But at the same time, I am inclined to permit the second petitioner to surrender before the Investigating Officer for the purpose of interrogation and then to have her application for bail allowed by the Magistrate or the Court B.A.No.1361/2011 -:2:- having jurisdiction. Accordingly, the second petitioner is directed to surrender before the investigating officer on 14/03/2011 or on 15/03/2011 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 second petitioner is imperative he shall record his reasons for the arrest in the case diary as insisted in paragraph 129 of Siddharam's case (supra). The second 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 second petitioner is without arresting her, the second petitioner shall thereafter appear before the Magistrate or the Court concerned on the same day or on the next day and apply for regular bail. The Magistrate or the Court on being satisfied that the second petitioner has been interrogated by the police shall, after hearing the prosecution as well, release the second petitioner on bail. 4. In case the second petitioner while surrendering before the Investigating Officer has deprived the investigating officer sufficient time for interrogation, the officer shall complete the interrogation even B.A.No.1361/2011 -:3:- 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. 5. The release of the second petitioner shall be on her executing a bond for `15,000/- (Rupees fifteen thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court concerned and subject to the following conditions:- 1. The 2nd petitioner shall report before the Investigating Officer between 9 a.m. and 11 a.m. on all Wednesdays. 2. The 2nd petitioner shall make herself available for interrogation including custodial interrogation as and when required by the Investigating Officer. 3. The 2nd petitioner shall not influence or intimidate the prosecution witnesses nor shall she attempt to tamper with the evidence for the prosecution. 4. The 2nd petitioner shall not commit any offence while on bail. B.A.No.1361/2011 -:4:- 5. If the 2nd petitioner commits breach of any of the above conditions, the bail granted to her shall be liable to be cancelled. This petition is disposed of as above. Dated this the 28th day of February, 2011. V.RAMKUMAR, JUDGE. skj