IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR TUESDAY, THE 8TH FEBRUARY 2011 / 19TH MAGHA 1932 Bail Appl..No. 744 of 2011() ------------------------------- O.R. NO. 17/2010 of MACHIPLAV FOREST STATION, IDUKKI PETITIONERS: 1. JOMON, AGED 24 YEARS, S/O.THANKAPPAN, CHERUMANTHIYIL, MACHIPLAV, ADIMALI, IDUKKI. 2. KUNJUMON, AGED 42 YEARS, S/O.MATHAI, PULINJOTTIL HOUSE, MACHIPLAV, ADIMALI, IDUKKI. 3. SHAJI, AGED 43 YEARS, S/O.PAULOSE, PUNNAMULAYIL, MACHIPLAV, ADIMALI, IDUKKI. 4. BIJU, AGED 39 YEARS, S/O.PAULOSE, KOMAYIL, MACHIPLAV, ADIMALI, IDUKKI. 5. GEORGE, AGED 35 YEARS, S/O. VARGHESE, CHENGANAT, MACHIPLAV, ADIMALI, IDUKKI. 6. ELDHOSE, AGED 39 YEARS, S/O.ULAHANNAN, ELANJIKAMALIL, MACHIPLAV, ADIMALI, IDUKKI. BY ADV. SRI.AUGUSTINE JOSEPH RESPONDENTS:- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. FOR AND ON BEHALF OF THE RANGE OFFICER, FOREST RANGE OFFICE, ADIMALI, IDUKKI. ADV. SRI. M.S. BREEZE, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR, J. ......................................... B.A. No. 744 of 2011 .......................................... Dated this the 8th day of February, 2011. ORDER Petitioners who are the accused in O.R. No.17 of 2010 of Machiplav Forest Station, Idukki for offences punishable under Sections 27(1)(e)(ii) and (iv) of the Kerala Forest Act, seek anticipatory bail. 2. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that petitioners 1, 3 and 5 are accused Nos. 2, 4 and 3 respectively and that petitioners 2, 4 and 6 have not yet been arrayed as accused in this case and it has not been decided as to whether they should be arrayed as accused. 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 B.A. No. 744/2011 2 the investigating officer has not had the advantage of interrogating petitioners 1, 3 and 5. But at the same time, I am inclined to permit petitioners 1, 3 and 5 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 5 shall surrender before the investigating officer on 21.02.2011 or on 22.02.2011 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 5 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 5 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, 3 and 5 are without arresting them, they shall thereafter appear before the Magistrate or the Court concerned and apply for regular bail on the same day or the next day. The Magistrate or the Court on being satisfied that petitioners 1, 3 and 5 have been interrogated by the police B.A. No. 744/2011 3 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. 4. In case petitioners 1, 3 and 5 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 5. 5. Petitioners 2, 4 and 6 may also comply with the above directions in case they are also arrayed as accused in the above case. This petition is disposed of as above. Dated this the 8th day of February, 2011. V.RAMKUMAR, JUDGE. rv B.A. No. 744/2011 4