ORDER

This Crl.M.C. is filed by the State for cancellation of the bail granted to the respondents 1 and 2, who are the accused Nos.1 and 2 in Crime No.140/2019 of Vagamon Police Station. The aforesaid crime was registered against the respondents for the offences under Sections 420 and 465 of Indian Penal Code. The respondents were granted anticipatory bail by this Court as per Annexure I order dated 28.06.2019. In the said case, the conditions imposed by this Court were as follows:

“(i) The petitioners shall not involve in any criminal offences of similar nature.

(ii) The petitioners shall fully co-operate with the investigation.

(iii) The petitioners shall report before the Investigating Officer as and when required in that connection.

(iv) The petitioners shall not influence witness or shall not tamper or attempt to tamper evidence in any manner, whatsoever.”

2. This application is submitted by the State on the ground that the respondents are not cooperating with the investigation and they are not appearing before the investigation officer for the purpose of interrogation, despite the issuance of notice in this regard on several occasions. According to the prosecution, the aforesaid act on the part of the respondents are amounting to violation of condition No.(ii) of Annexure I order. This Crl.M.C. is submitted in such circumstances seeking cancellation of bail.

3. Heard Sri.S.U. Nazar, learned Special Government Pleader and Sri.L.Rajesh Narayan, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

4. The specific contention put forward by the learned Special Government Pleader is that, on account of failure on the part of the respondents in appearing before the investigation officer, they are unable to conduct a proper investigation in the matter. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent would submit that, even though they appeared before the investigation officer on several occasion, the statements were not recorded and even the fact of appearance was not recorded.

5. I have perused the records and considered the rival contentions raised from either side. There is some dispute as to whether the respondents have appeared before the investigation officer. Even though the respondents claimed that they appeared before the investigation officer on several occasions, the submission made on behalf of the State is otherwise. However, the respondents have expressed their willingness to appear before the investigation officer as and when required by him. Considering the fact that the predominant importance to be given is to complete the investigation as expeditiously as possible, I am of the view that, an opportunity can be granted to the respondents to cooperate with the investigation. Now since the respondents have expressed their willingness to surrender before the investigation officer as and when required by him, it is only proper that, this Crl.M.C. is disposed of recording the above submission and facilitating the respondents to make appearance before the investigation officer.

Therefore, I am of the view that, instead of passing an order of cancellation of bail the respondents can be directed to appear before the investigation officer on specific dates until the investigation is completed. Therefore, this Crl.M.C. is disposed of directing the respondents 1 and 2 to appear before the investigation officer on all alternate Saturdays commencing from 22.10.2022. At this juncture, the learned counsel for the respondents pointed out that, 1st respondent/1st accused is aged around 90 years and hence he may be granted some exemption in the matter of appearance. In such circumstances, it is ordered that, the 1st respondent shall appear before the investigation officer on 22.10.2022 and 05.11.2022. Thereafter he shall appear before the investigation officer as and when required by him. The appearance of the 2nd respondent in the manner as mentioned above shall continue until the investigation is completed. This Crl.M.C i