IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 8TH FEBRUARY 2011 / 19TH MAGHA 1932 WP(C).No. 38801 of 2010(A) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): -------------------- 1. ASOKKUMAR, S/O.BHASKARAN, VALLIYAZHIKATHU VADAKKETHARAYIL, KATCHERY P.O., THANKASSERI, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 2. AJOYKUMAR, S/O.BHASKARAN, VALLIYAZHIKATHU VADAKKETHARAYIL, KATCHERY P.O., THANKASSERI, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.C.RAJENDRAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KOLLAM-691001. 2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PALLITHOTTAM POLICE STATION, KOLLAM DISTRICT-691006. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.V.MANU THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. ---------------------------------------------- WP(C).No.38801 OF 2010 ---------------------------------------------- Dated this the 8th day of February, 2011 O R D E R Petitioners are accused 1 and 2 in Crime No.697/2010 of Pallithottam Police Station registered for offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 427 and 447 read with 149 of Indian Penal Code. Learned Magistrate granted them bail and while on bail, respondent No.2, who is investigating the case issued notice to the petitioners to appear before him on 29.12.2010 at 10 AM. That notice is challenged in this petition on various grounds including that petitioners being on bail could not have been summoned as directed. 2. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. Learned Public Prosecutor submits that petitioners were summoned for identification of some of other accused involved in the case. 3. I am afraid, I cannot accept the argument that once the accused is released on bail it amounts to a fetter on the part of the police to summon him for questioning. Section 160 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, 'the Code') empowers the police officer in making investigation under that Chapter to require by an order in writing attendance before himself of any person being within the limits of his own or any adjoining station who, from the information given or WP(C).38801/10 2 otherwise, appears to be acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case, and such person shall attend as so required. Section 160 of the Code makes no difference whether the person summoned is an accused or not. I, therefore, do not find any reason to interfere with the notice issued to the petitioners 4. It is seen that the notice directed petitioners to appear on 29.12.2010 at 10 AM. That date has already passed by. Hence, I make it clear that if interrogation of the petitioners is required and if it appears that the petitioners are acquainted with the facts of the case, it is open to the investigating officer to issue fresh notice to the petitioners as provided under Section 160 of the Code. Writ Petition is disposed of as above. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE vgs