IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA WEDNESDAY, THE 3RD SEPTEMBER 2008 / 12TH BHADRA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 5180 of 2008() ----------------------------- CMP.2247/2008 of C.J.M.,KASARAGOD CRIME NO.139/08 OF KUMBLA POLICE STATION PETITIONER ----------------- ABDUL SALAM, S/O.HASSANABBA, 40 YEARS R/AT ULLAL KODI, ULAL, MANGALORE BY ADV. SRI.E.R.VENKATESWARAN SRI.R.SREEHARI RESPONDENTS: ------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KUMBLA POLICE STATION THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI.M.S.BREEZE THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. ----------------------------------------- B.A.No. 5180 of 2008 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 3rd September, 2008 O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. Petitioner is the husband of the de facto complainant. According to the de facto complainant, the petitioner harassed the de facto complainant and she was ousted from the house. He brought another lady by name, Khadeeja to his house while the de facto complainant was present in the house and stated that she is his wife. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that the said Khadeeja is the petitioner's first wife as revealed from Annexure-A4 marriage certificate. He married her in the year 1991. It is not correct to say that she was brought to his house five months back as alleged. It is also submitted that Annexure A5 ration card will show that the said Khadeeja, petitioner and their children were residing in the same house and the allegation presently made that the said Khadeeja was brought to the house only five months back is not correct. The de facto complainant is the second wife of the petitioner and she was residing in the house along with his first wife. BA.5180/08 2 4. After hearing both sides, the case was referred to the Lok Adalat. Despite specific direction was given, the de facto complainant was not present in the Adalat. Petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor were present. Hence, the case could not be settled in the Adalat. 5. On hearing both sides and on going through Annexures A4 and A5 ration card and the allegations in the complaint, I find that anticipatory bail can be granted to the petitioner. Hence, the following order is passed: i) Petitioner shall surrender before the investigating officer within seven days from today and if the petitioner is arrested, he shall be released on 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 condition that he will report before the investigating officer for interrogation as and when directed and co-operate with the investigation. Petition is allowed. K.HEMA, JUDGE vgs.