IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR MONDAY, THE 28TH FEBRUARY 2011 / 9TH PHALGUNA 1932 Bail Appl..No. 1385 of 2011() ---------------------------------------- (O.R. NO.5/2011 OF FOREST RANGE OFFICE, THODUPUZHA, IDUKKI DISTRICT) ......... PETITIONERS -------------------- 1. BENNY VARGHESE, AGED 42 YEARS, S/O.VARGHESE, PUTHENPURACKAL HOUSE, PERIMKALA BHAGAM, MANIYARANKUDY KARA,IDUKKI VILLAGE. 2. AJESH.N.V., AGED 31 YEARS, S/O.VARGHESE, NELLIKKUNNEL HOUSE, PALLIKKAVALA BHAGAM, VAZHATHOPPU KARA,IDUKKI VILLAGE. 3. BIJU KURIAKOSE, AGED 33 YEARS, S/O.KURIAKOSE, PALIYATH HOUSE, PALLIKKAVALA BHAGAM, VAZHATHOPPU KARA,IDUKKI VILLAGE. 4. SAJEEV SREEDHARAN, AGED 27 YEARS, S/O.SREEDHARAN, THAMARAKKATTU HOUSE, PERIMKALA BHAGAM, MANIYARANKUDY KARA,IDUKKI DISTRICT. 5. GEORGE DEVASIA, AGED 56 YEARS, S/O.DEVASIA, PAZHAMPILLIL HOUSE, PERIMKALA BHAGAM, MANIYARANKUDY KARA,IDUKKI DISTRICT. 6. JIBY MATHEW, AGED 32 YEARS, S/O.MATHEW, KOCHUPARAMBIL HOUSE, MULAKUVALLY KARA, IDUKKI VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.JAISON JOSEPH RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. FOREST RANGER, FOREST RANGE OFFICE, THODUPUZHA. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.C.S.HRITHWIK THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: svs V. RAMKUMAR, J. ......................................... Bail Application No.1385 of 2011 .......................................... Dated: 28.02.2011 ORDER Petitioners, who are accused Nos.1,3,4,7,8 and 11 in O.R No.5/2011 of Forest Range Office, Thodupuzha for offences punishable under Sections 27(i) e(iii) a (iv) of the Forest Act, 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 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 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 considered by the Magistrate or the Court having jurisdiction. Accordingly, the petitioners are directed to surrender before the investigating officer on 14.03.2011 or on 15.03.2011 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 the petitioners is imperative he shall record his reasons for the arrest in the case-diary as insisted in paragraph 129 of Siddharam's case (supra). The petitioners shall thereafter be produced before the Magistrate or the Court concerned and permitted to file an application for regular B.A. No. 1385/2011 -:2:- bail. In case the interrogation of the petitioners is without arresting them, the petitioners 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 the petitioners 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 the petitioners 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 the petitioners . This petition is disposed of as above. Dated this the 28th day of February, 2011. V.RAMKUMAR, JUDGE sj