IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA WEDNESDAY, THE 15TH OCTOBER 2008 / 23RD ASWINA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 5263 of 2008() ----------------------------- (CRIME NO.327/2008 OF ANTHIKKAD POLICE STATION) PETITIONER/ACCUSED: -------------------- RAJAN, 40 YEARSW, S/O.VISALAKSHI AMMA VADEKKARA HOUSE, IYYAL VILLAGE ATHOOR DESOM, THALAPPILLY THALUK, THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.RAJIT SRI.RANJIT BABU RESPONDENT(S): --------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.K.S. SIVAKUMAR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K. HEMA, J. --------------------------------------------------- Bail Appl.No. 5263 of 2008 --------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 15th day of October, 2008. ORDER Petition for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Sections 341, 323, 506(ii) and 498A of IPC. According to prosecution, petitioner, who is the husband of the de facto complainant, physically and mentally harassed the de facto complainant and committed various offences while she was living with him in his house. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner and the de facto complainant were married as early as on 26.8. 1997 and they were having two children and one child is having cancer and the relationship was cordial. On 31.3.2008, the de facto complainant's brother and brother-in-law came to the petitioner's residence where he was living with family and there was some altercation, since petitioner was having some dispute with the de facto complainant's brother and the petitioner was assaulted by them. In the assault, the petitioner lost two teeth and a crime was registered as Crime No.113 of 2008 under Sections 341, 323 and 34 of IPC against them. Thereafter, de facto complainant was taken to her [B.A.No.5263/08] 2 house along with two children and even access to the children are now denied to the petitioner even though his child is suffering from cancer. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that petitioner filed a petition for restitution of conjugal rights on 24.4.2008. There was a counseling and in the counseling the de facto complainant only made a demand that the compliant against her brother and brother-in-law should be withdrawn and that he should reside somewhere near her brother's house and then only she will reside with him. Petitioner was willing to heed to the latter request but he refused to withdraw the complaint. Therefore, the settlement fizzled out. Even now the petitioner is prepared to take his wife and children back. If the petitioner is detained in prison, the chances of settlement will be destroyed. It is only after the counseling was over that the present compliant is filed, it is submitted. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that there are some allegations which amount to matrimonial cruelty. But, on the facts of this case, petitioner may be directed to surrender before the investigating officer and co-operate with the investigation and subject to this, he has no objection in granting anticipatory bail. Hence, the following order is passed: 1) Petitioner shall surrender before the investigating officer within 7 days from today and co-operate with the investigation. [B.A.No.5263/08] 3 2) Petitioner shall be released only bail in the event of his arrest on his executing a bond for Rs.25,000/- with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the arresting officer on the following conditions: i) Petitioner shall report before the investigating officer as and when directed. ii) Petitioner shall not influence or intimidate any witness or commit any offence while on bail. Petition is allowed. K. HEMA, JUDGE. Krs.