IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR TUESDAY, THE 21ST JUNE 2011 / 31ST JYAISHTA 1933 Bail Appl..No. 4644 of 2011() ----------------------------- CRMP.1472/2011 of ADDL. SESSIONS COURT, ALAPPUZHA .................... PETITIONER/ACCUSED:- --------------------------- 1. SHYLAJA, W/O.BABY, AGED 49 YEARS, KALLUVILA VEEDU, EAST OF SBT, AVALOOKUNNU P.O., ALAPPUZHA. 2. SREERAJ @ KANNAN, S/O.BABY, AGED 25 YEARS, KALLUVILA VEEDU, EAST OF SBT, AVALOOKUNNU P.O., ALAPPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.K.M.FIROZ SMT.M.SHAJNA RESPONDENT/STATE:- -------------------------- THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ALAPPUZHA NORTH POLICE STATION, THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. ADV. SRI. M.S. BREEZE, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR, J. ......................................... Bail Application No. 4644 of 2011 .......................................... Dated this the 21st day of June, 2011. ORDER Petitioners who are accused Nos. 1 and 2 in Crime No. 474 of 2011 of Alappuzha North Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 324 and 326 I.P.C., seek anticipatory bail. 2. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application. The learned Public Prosecutor on instructions submitted that the first petitioner is not an accused in the case and that the 2nd petitioner is the sole accused in the case. If so, the apprehension of arrest and harassment entertained by the first petitioner is unfounded and this application so far as it relates to the first petitioner 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 B.A. No. 4644/2011 -:2:- had the advantage of interrogating the petitioner. Accordingly, the 2nd petitioner is directed to surrender before the investigating officer on 01.07.2011 or on 02.07.2011 for the purpose of interrogation and recovery of incriminating material, if any. In case the petitioner is arrested by the Investigating Officer before interrogation, the petitioner 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 the first petitioner is without arresting him, the petitioner 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 first petitioner has been interrogated by the police shall, after hearing the prosecution as well, consider and dispose of his application for regular bail preferably on the same date on which it is filed. In case the first petitioner while surrendering before the Investigating Officer has 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 B.A. No. 4644/2011 -:3:- 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 petitioner. This petition is disposed of as above. Dated this the 21st day of June, 2011. sd/- V.RAMKUMAR, JUDGE. rv //True Copy// P.A to Judge.