IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR MONDAY, THE 6TH JUNE 2011 / 16TH JYAISHTA 1933 Bail Appl..No. 4126 of 2011() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.600 OF 2011 OF KAYAMKULAM POLICE STATION PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1, 2 & 4 ------------------------------- 1. SUJA, SHEEJA MANZIL, CHIRAKKADAVAM MURI, KAYAMKULAM P.O., KAYAMKULAM. 2. SHEEJA, VASIM MANZIL, KAYAMKULAM P.O., KAYAMKULAM. 3. FATHIMA BEEVI, W/O.MUHAMMED KUNJU, SHEEJA MANZIL, CHIRAKKADAVAM MURI, KAYAMKULAM P.O, KAYAMKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE VARGHESE(PERUMPALLIKUTTIYIL) RESPONDENTS: STATE & COMPLAINANT ---------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KAYAMKULAM- 690 502. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.M.R.VENUGOPAL THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR, J. ---------------------------------- Bail Application No.4126 of 2011 ----------------------------------- Dated this the 06th day of June, 2011 ORDER Petitioners, who are accused Nos.1, 2 & 4 in Crime No.600 of 2011 of Kayamkulam Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 498A, 323, 324, 326 & 308 read with Section 34 I.P.C., seek anticipatory bail. 2. The learned Public Prosecutor on instructions submitted that the 3rd petitioner who is the 4th accused and mother-in-law of the de facto complainant has since been deleted from the array of accused. If so, the apprehension of arrest and harassment entertained by the 3rd petitioner is unfounded. This petition so far as it relates to the 3rd petitioner is accordingly 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 1st & 2nd petitioners (A1 & A2). Accordingly, 1st & 2nd petitioners (A1 & A2) are directed to surrender before the investigating officer on 17/06/2011 or on 18/06/2011 for the purpose of interrogation and recovery of incriminating material, if any. In case 1st & 2nd petitioners (A1 & A2) are arrested by the Investigating Officer before B.A.No.4126/2011 -:2:- interrogation, 1st & 2nd petitioners (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 1st & 2nd petitioners (A1 & A2) is without arresting them, 1st & 2nd petitioners (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 1st & 2nd petitioners (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 1st & 2nd petitioners (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 1st & 2nd petitioners (A1 & A2). This petition is disposed of as above. Dated this the 06th day of June, 2011. V.RAMKUMAR, JUDGE skj