IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR FRIDAY, THE 11TH MARCH 2011 / 20TH PHALGUNA 1932 Bail Appl..No. 1609 of 2011() ----------------------------- CRIME No.71/2011 OF ALUVA WEST POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM .................... PETITIONERS :- ---------------------- 1. JAYARAJ K.R., S/O.K.R.RAVI, AGED 22 YEARS, KUNNIL (H), MANJALI, MANNAM P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT – 683 520. 2. SEETHA K.G., W/O.K.R.RAVI, AGED 52 YEARS, KUNNIL (H), MANJALI, MANNAM P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT – 683 520. 3. RAVI K.R., S/O.RAVUNNI, AGED 62 YEARS, KUNNIL (H), MANJALI, MANNAM P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT – 683 520. 4. LAILA K.G., W/O.JOSHI, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, KOMATHURUTH (H), CHERIAPALLAN THURUTH, PARAVUR P.O., ERNAKULAM. 5. JAYAMMA K.G., W/O.BABU, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, ERAVULLIL (H), ANACHAL, MANNAM P.O., ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.M.T.BALAN SRI.B.JAYABAL RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR.C.S.HRITHWIK THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: jvt V. RAMKUMAR, J. ================= Bail Application No. 1609 of 2011 ================= Dated this the 11th day of March, 2011. ORDER Petitioner Nos.1, 2, 4 and 5, who are accused Nos.1, 2, 3 and 4 in Crime No. 71/2011 of Aluva West Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 498(A) and 306 read with 34 I.P.C., seek anticipatory bail. 2. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that petitioner Nos.1, 2, 4 and 5 are accused Nos.1 to 4 and that the 3rd petitioner is not an accused in this case. If so, the apprehension entertained by the 3rd petitioner is unfounded and his request for anticipatory bail is rejected. 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 petitioner Nos.1, 2, 4 B.A. No.1609/2011 -:2:- and 5. But at the same time, I am inclined to permit the petitioner Nos.1, 2, 4 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, the petitioner Nos.1, 2, 4 and 5 are directed to surrender before the investigating officer on 22.03.2011 or on 23.03.2011 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 petitioner Nos.1, 2, 4 and 5 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 petitioner Nos.1, 2, 4 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 the petitioner Nos.1, 2, 4 and 5 is without arresting them, they 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 petitioner Nos.1, 2, 4 and 5 have been interrogated by the police shall, after hearing the B.A. No.1609/2011 -:3:- 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 petitioner Nos.1, 2, 4 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 the petitioner Nos.1, 2, 4 and 5 . This petition is disposed of as above. Dated this the 11th day of March, 2011. V.RAMKUMAR, JUDGE dmb