JUDGMENT

KRISHNA IYER, J. :— We have heard counsel on both sides. We are satisfied that this is a case where on the facts now placed before us, bail should be granted. The principles bearing on grant or refusal of bail have already been explained by this Court in Gurcharan Singh v. State (Delhi Admn.) (AIR 1978 SC 179). On the basis of that decision this is clearly a case where the appellant is entitled to bail. Two grounds have been mentioned on behalf of the State, namely, the appellants presence is necessary for making a search and recovery of certain documents. We do not think that the appellant has to be taken into custody for making a search of premises in her presence. This can be done without her being taken into custody. The other ground that is put forward is the appellants presence as required by the police for interrogation in connection with investigation. We make it clear that the appellant shall appear for interrogation by the police whenever reasonably required, subject to her right under Article 20 (3) of the Constitution.

2. We allow the appeal and direct the appellant to be enlarged on bail on condition that she, with two sureties, will enter into a bond in a sum