IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR TUESDAY, THE 7TH DECEMBER 2010 / 16TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 Bail Appl..No. 7904 of 2010() ----------------------------------------- (CRIME NO.30/2008 OF ARYANCODE POLICE STATION,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM) .... PETITIONER(S): 2ND ACCUSED: ------------------------------------------------- A.S. MOHAN, AGED 48, S/O. ALISHAMACHIKAM SARASAMMA, M.G.M COLEGE, PERUMKADAVILA.P.O, NEYYATINKARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 124. BY ADVS. SRI.S.SUDHISH KUMAR, SRI.S.MURALI. RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT: --------------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, (REPRESENTING SUB INSEPCTOR OF POLICE, ARYANCODE POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT). BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. V. TEKCHAND THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss V. RAMKUMAR, J. ......................................... B.A. No. 7904 of 2010 .......................................... Dated this the 7th day of December, 2010 ORDER Petitioner, who is the 2nd accused in Crime No.30/2008 of Aryancode Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 468 and 471 I.P.C. and under Section 12(b)of the Indian Passport Act, 1967, seeks 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 dated 2-12-2010 of the Apex Court in Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra and Others (Crl.Appeal No. 2271 of 2010), 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 petitioner. But at the same time, I am inclined to permit the petitioner to surrender before the Investigating Officer for the purpose of interrogation and then to have his application for bail allowed by the Magistrate having jurisdiction. Accordingly, the petitioner shall surrender before B.A.No.7904/2010 2 the investigating officer on 17.12.2010 or on 18.12.2010 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 petitioner 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). The petitioner shall thereafter be produced before the Magistrate and permitted to file an application for regular bail. In case the interrogation of the petitioner is without arresting him, the petitioner shall thereafter appear before the Magistrate and apply for regular bail. The Magistrate on being satisfied that the petitioner has been interrogated by the police shall release the petitioner on bail on the petitioner executing a bond for Rs. 15,000/- (Rupees fifteen thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like amount to the satisfaction of the Magistrate and subject to the following conditions:- B.A.No.7904/2010 3 1. The petitioner shall report before the Investigating Officer between 9 a.m. and 11 a.m. on all Wednesdays. 2. The petitioner shall make himself available for interrogation including custodial interrogation as and when required by the Investigating Officer. 3. Petitioner shall not influence or intimidate the prosecution witnesses nor shall he attempt to tamper with the evidence for the prosecution. 4. Petitioner shall not commit any offence while on bail. 5. If the petitioner commits breach of any of the above conditions, the bail granted to him shall be liable to be cancelled. This petition is disposed of as above. V.RAMKUMAR, JUDGE ln