IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR FRIDAY, THE 28TH JANUARY 2011 / 8TH MAGHA 1932 Bail Appl..No. 523 of 2011() ---------------------------------------- (CRIME NO.796/10 OF RANNY POLICE STATION,PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT) .... PETITIONERS/ACCUSED: -------------------------------------- 1. KUNJUMON MATHEW, AGED 42 YEARS, S/O.YOHANNAN, MARUTHIKKATTIL HOUSE, ANGADI VILLAGE, RANNY TALUK,PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. 2. SUSAN, AGED 40 YEARS, W/O.KUNJUMON MATEHW, MARUTHIKKATTIL HOSUE, ANGADI VILLAGE, RANNY TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. 3. JALAL K.M. AGD 50 YEARS, KAZHITHOTTU PURAYIDATHIL, ANGADI VILLAGE, RANNY TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. 4. SALAL, AGED 17 YEARS, S/O.JALAL K.M., KAZHITHOTTU PURAYIDATHIL, ANGADI VILLAGE, RANNY THALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. 5. JAMEELA AGED 42, S/O.JALA K.M. ,AGED 50 YEARS, KAZHITHOTTU PURAYIDATHIL, ANGADI VILLAGE, RANNY TALUK, PATHANAMTHITT DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.VARUGHESE M EASO RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT: --------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REP.BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM,COCHIN - 682 031. 2. SUB INSEPCTOR OF POLICE, RANNY POLICE STATION, PATHANAMTHITTA - 689 672. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. C.S. HRITHWIK THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss V. RAMKUMAR, J. ......................................... B.A. No.523 of 2011 .......................................... Dated this the 28 th day of January, 2011 ORDER Petitioners, who are accused Nos.2 to 5 in Crime No.796/2010 of Ranny Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 366, 354 and 376 read with 34 I.P.C., seek anticipatory bail. 2. The learned Public Prosecutor submits that the petitioners 1,3 and 4 are accused Nos.2,3 and 4 respectively and the 2nd petitioner is not an accused in the case. If so, the prayer for anticipatory bail made by the 2nd petitioner is misconceived and is accordingly dismissed. 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 (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 petitioners 1,3 and 4. But at the same time, I am B.A. No. 523/2011 -:2:- inclined to permit petitioners 1,3 and 4 to surrender before the Investigating Officer for the purpose of interrogation and then to have their application for bail considered by the Magistrate or the Court having jurisdiction. Accordingly, petitioners 1,3 and 4 shall surrender before the investigating officer on 14.02.2011 or on 16.02.2011 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 petitioners 1,3 and 4 is 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). Petitioners 1,3 and 4 shall thereafter be produced before the Magistrate or the Court concerned and permitted to file an application for regular bail on the same day or the next day. In case the interrogation of petitioners 1,3 and 4 are without arresting them, petitioners 1,3 and 4 shall thereafter appear before the Magistrate or the Court concerned and apply for regular bail. The Magistrate or the Court on being satisfied that petitioners 1,3 and 4 have been interrogated by the police shall, after hearing the prosecution as well, consider and dispose of their application for B.A. No. 523/2011 -:3:- regular bail preferably on the same date on which it is filed. In case petitioners 1,3 and 4 while surrendering before the Investigating Officer have 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 petitioners 1,3 and 4 . This petition is disposed of as above. Dated this the 28 th day of January, 2011. V.RAMKUMAR, JUDGE sj B.A. No. 523/2011 -:4:-