IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN FRIDAY, THE 16TH DECEMBER 2011 / 25TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 Bail Appl..No. 8847 OF 2011() ----------------------------- (CRIME NO. 1634/2011 OF PERUMBAVOOR POLICE STATION) PETITIONERS/ACCUSED --------------------------------------- 1. SHAMSUDHEEN, AGED 59 YEARS, S/O.MUHAMMED, MULANTHIKKAL, VENGOLA KARA, PONJASSERRY P.O., PERUMBAVOOR. 2. KADEEJA, AGED 55 YEARS, W/O. SHAMSUDHEEN, MULANTHIKKAL, VENGOLA KARA, PONJASSERRY P.O., PERUMBAVOOR. BY ADV. SRI.BABU KARUKAPADATH SRI.JAGAN GEORGE SRI.K.A.NOUSHAD SRI.P.G.PRAMOD RESPONDENTS: STATE & THE COMPLAINANT . --------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY STATION HOUSE OFFICER, PERUMBAVOOR POLICE STATION, PERUMBAVOOR. (THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM) ADDITIONAL RESPONDENT No. 2. THASNEE, D/O. SIDHIQUE, VALIYAVEETIL HOUSE, KOTTAPPURAM KARA, ALANGADU VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. (ADDITIONAL 2ND RESPONDENT IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 21.11.2011 IN CRL.M.A. 7550/2011 IN B.A. 8847/2011) PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. R. REMA. THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/12/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: P.S. GOPINATHAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = B.A. NO. 8847 OF 2011 = = = = = = = = = = = = = DATED THIS, THE 16th DAY OF DECEMBER, 2011. O R D E R Petitioners are accused 2 and 3 in Crime No. 1634/2011 of Perumbavoor Police Station alleging offence under Sections 498A and 323 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Though the petitioners preferred Crl. M.C. 1645/2011 before the Sessions Judge, Ernakulam under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking an order to release them on bail in the event of arrest, by annexure A1 order dated 18.10.2011, the Sessions Judge dismissed that petition. Seeking same relief, petitioners have come up with this petition. 2. The defacto complainant ie. the daughter in law of the petitioners was impleaded as second respondent. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor as well as the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent. Though this petition is strongly opposed by the second respondent stating that she was brutally assaulted by her husband in the presence of the petitioners, who are the parents-in-law and that no relief shall be granted to the petitioners under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, I find that the case being B.A. 8847/2011 2 one out of matrimonial dispute and that the second respondent is now living at her parental house, it would be appropriate to release the petitioners on bail on conditions. In the result, this petition is allowed. The petitioners are directed to report before the investigating officer, who, after interrogation, shall release them on bail on each of them executing bond for Rs. 20,000/- (Twenty thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the investigating officer on the following conditions: 1. The petitioners shall report before the investigating officer for interrogation as and when required. 2. The petitioners shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such B B B facts to the court or to any police officer And 3. Petitioners shall not leave North Paravoor Taluk without prior permission of the Court. This order shall be in force for a period of one month within which time petitioners shall apply for regular bail, failing which the investigating officer shall arrest them and produce before court. P.S. GOPINATHAN, (JUDGE) knc/-