IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR MONDAY, THE 27TH JUNE 2011 / 6TH ASHADHA 1933 Bail Appl..No. 4831 of 2011() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.62/2011 OF CHATHANNOOR POLICE STATION APPLICANTS: ACCUSED: ---------------------- 1. B.RAJESH, AGED 35 YEARS, S/O.BALAKRISHNAN, AMBIKA SADANAM, KARAMCODE, CHATHANOOR. 2. LAKSHMI, AGED 55 YEARS, W/O.BALAKRISHNAN, AMBIKA SADANAM, KARAMCODE, CHATHANNOOR. 3. AMBIKA, AGED 30 YEARS, W/O.MOHAN KUMAR, KOIKKALCHERY VEEDU, MULAVANA P.O., PERAYAM, KUNDARA. 4. MOHANKUMAR @ BINDHU, AGED 35 YEARS, KOIKKALCHERRY VEEDU, MULAVANA P.O., PERAYAM, KUNDARA. BY ADV. SRI.K.G.ANIL BABU SRI.R.RAJESH(PULLIKADA) RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECURTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM. 2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CHATHANNOOR POLICE STATION, CHATHANNOOR, KOLLAM DISTRICT. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.C.S.HRITHWIK THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR, J. ---------------------------------- Bail Appln. No.4831 of 2011 ----------------------------------- Dated this the 27th day of June, 2011 ORDER Petitioners, who are accused Nos.1 to 4 in Crime No.62 of 2011 of Chathannoor Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 498-A & 34 I.P.C., seek anticipatory bail. 2. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that even though the petitioners 1 to 4 were initially A1 to A4 in the crime, subsequently name of the petitioners 3 & 4 has been deleted from the array of accused and as at present petitioners 1 and 2 alone are A1 and A2. In view of the above submission the apprehension of arrest and harassment entertained by the petitioners 3 and 4 is unfounded and this petition so far as petitioners 3 and 4 are concerned is dismissed. 3. After evaluating the factors and parameters which are to be taken into consideration in the light of paragraph 112 of the verdict of the Apex Court in Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra and Others - (2011) 1 SCC 694 , 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 and 2 (A1 & A2). Accordingly, petitioners 1 and 2 (A1 & A2) are directed to surrender before the investigating officer on 12/07/2011 or on 13/07/2011 for the purpose of interrogation and recovery of incriminating material, if any. In case petitioners 1 and 2 (A1 & A2) are arrested by the Bail Appln.No.4831/2011 : 2 : Investigating Officer before interrogation, petitioners 1 and 2 (A1 & A2) 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 petitioners 1 and 2 (A1 & A2) is without arresting them, petitioners 1 and 2 (A1 & A2) shall thereafter appear before the Magistrate or the Court concerned on the same day or the next day and apply for regular bail. The Magistrate or the Court on being satisfied that petitioners 1 and 2 (A1 & A2) have been interrogated by the police shall, after hearing the prosecution as well, consider and dispose of their application for regular bail preferably on the same date on which it is filed. In case petitioners 1 and 2 (A1 & A2) 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 and 2 (A1 & A2). This petition is disposed of as above. Dated this the 27th day of June, 2011. V.RAMKUMAR, JUDGE skj