IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR TUESDAY, THE 7TH DECEMBER 2010 / 16TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 Bail Appl..No. 7844 of 2010() -------------------------- CRIME NO. 502/2010 OF ERUMELI POLICE STATION, KOTTAYAM ..................................... PETITIONER / ACCUSED: ----------------------------------- 1. AYOOB, AGED 28 YEARS, S/O.ISMAIL, EZHIVEETIL, PAMPINI MURI, CHITTAR, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTIRCT. 2. ISMAIL, EZHIVEETIL, PAMPINI MURI, CHITTAR, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. 3. ISHA @ FATHIMI, W/O.ISMAIL, EZHIVEETIL, PAMPINI MURI, CHITTAR, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.V.SETHUNATH SRI. PRAKASH KESAVAN RESPONDENTS / COMPLAINANT / STATE: ------------------------------------------------------------ 1. THE S.I.OF POLICE, ERUMELI POLICE STATION, PIN-686509. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. R1 & R2 BY BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. V. TEK CHAND THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Mn V.RAMKUMAR, J. ----------------------------------------------------- Bail Application No.7844 of 2010 ------------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 07th day of December, 2010 ORDER The petitioners, who are accused Nos.1 to 3 in Crime No.502 of 2010 of Erumeli Police Station, Kottayam, for an offence punishable under Section 498-A & 34 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. Accordingly, Bail Appln.No.7844/2010 : 2 : 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 `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:- Bail Appln.No.7844/2010 : 3 : 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. The petitioners shall not influence or intimidate the prosecution witnesses nor shall they attempt to tamper with the evidence for the prosecution. 4. The petitioners shall not commit any offence while on bail. 5. If the petitioners commit 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. Dated this the 07th day of December, 2010. V.RAMKUMAR, JUDGE skj