IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA FRIDAY, THE 6TH JUNE 2008 / 16TH JYAISHTA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 3524 of 2008() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.185/2008 OF KUNNICODE POLICE STATION PETITIONER/ACCUSED: ------------------------------------ DAISY KUNJUNNY, HEADMISTRESS, APPMV HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, AVANEESWARAM. BY ADV. SRI.B.KRISHNA MANI RESPONDENTS: STATE/COMPLAINANT: ------------------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KUNNICODE POLICE STATION. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.M.S.BREEZ THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K. HEMA, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - B.A.No. 3524 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 6th day of June, 2008 O R D E R Application for anticipatory bail. 2. According to the prosecution, petitioner was the head of an educational institution. A complaint was given in writing in October, 2007 with respect to ragging of a student and an enquiry was also conducted. As per the enquiry report dated 24-10-2007, it was found that there was substance in the allegation. But, the petitioner did not report the matter to the police immediately. Therefore, the petitioner failed or neglected to take action in the manner specified in section 6 of the Act and hence she is deemed to have abetted the offence. The incident occurred in October, 2007 and the alleged complaint is only on 22-4-2008. 3. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, she is a victim of mala fide action. The petitioner was suspended from service on 29-10-2007 and the present defacto-complainant, who is the head of the institution in-charge, took charge on 29-10-2007 itself on the BA 3524/08 -2- suspension of the petitioner. But, the alleged complaint is filed only after about six months, i.e., on 22-4-2008. If the petitioner is guilty, the defacto-complainant is also guilty. But, she was not suspended and a complaint is lodged against the petitioner at the instance of the Manager of the institution. The Manager was subordinate employee working in the same institution, when the petitioner was the head of the institution. Action had been taken against him for misconduct on the report made by the petitioner. Documents are produced to substantiate this contention. Thereafter, when he became the Manager, he threatened the petitioner with direct consequences and implicated her in the offence. She apprehends harassment from the part of the police at the instance of the Manager. 4. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the petitioner may be directed to appear before the Investigating Officer for interrogation and he has no objection in releasing her on bail thereafter. 5. Hence, the following order is passed:- The petitioner shall surrender before the Investigating Officer within ten days from today and make herself available for BA 3524/08 -3- interrogation. Thereafter, in the event of her arrest, she shall be released on bail on her executing a bond for Rs.25,000/- with two solvent sureties each to the satisfaction of the arresting officer on condition that she shall appear before the Investigating Officer for interrogation as and when directed. The application is allowed as above. K. HEMA, JUDGE. mn.