IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Bail Appl..No. 707 of 2011()
1. REMA MOHAN, THAMARAYIL HOUSE,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.T.P.PRADEEP
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.RAMKUMAR
Dated :04/02/2011
O R D E R
V.RAMKUMAR, J.
-----------------------------------------------------
Bail Application No.707 of 2011
------------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 4th day of February, 2011
ORDER
Petitioner, who is accused No.3 in Crime No.325 of 2010 of
Thiruvalla Police Station for an offence punishable under Section
420 I.P.C., 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
(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. 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 her application for bail
allowed by the Magistrate or the Court having jurisdiction.
Bail.Appln.No.707/2011
-:2:-
Accordingly, the petitioner shall surrender before the
investigating officer on 16/02/2011 or on 17/02/2011 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 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 or the Court concerned and
permitted to file an application for regular bail. In case the
interrogation of the petitioner is without arresting her, the
petitioner shall thereafter appear before the Magistrate or the
Court concerned and apply for regular bail. The Magistrate or
the Court on being satisfied that the petitioner has been
interrogated by the police shall, after hearing the prosecution as
well, release the petitioner on bail.
4. In case the accused 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
Bail.Appln.No.707/2011
-:3:-
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 accused.
5. The release of the petitioner shall be on the petitioner
executing a bond for `15,000/- (Rupees fifteen thousand only)
with two solvent sureties each for the like amount to the
satisfaction of the Court concerned and subject to the following
conditions:-
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 herself available for
interrogation including custodial interrogation as and
when required by the Investigating Officer.
3. The petitioner shall not influence or intimidate the
prosecution witnesses nor shall she attempt to tamper
with the evidence for the prosecution.
Bail.Appln.No.707/2011
-:4:-
4. The 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 her shall be liable to be
cancelled.
This petition is disposed of as above.
V.RAMKUMAR, JUDGE
skj
