IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT FRIDAY, THE 29TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 10TH PHALGUNA 1929 Bail Appl..No. 1249 of 2008() ----------------------------- CMP.5852/2005 of J.M.F.C.-II,NEYYATTINKARA CRIME NO.688/05 OF PARASSALA POLICE STATION .................... PETITIONERS/A2 TO A5 ------------------------------------- 1. NAZEEMA SYEDALI, (A2), D/O. SULAIKHA BEEVI, SYED MANZIL, THETTIYODU PUTHENVEEDU, P.P.M.JUNCTION, PARASSALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. SYED MOHAMMED KHAN, (A3), SYED MANZIL, THETTIYODU PUTHENVEEDU, P.P.M.JUNCTION, PARASSALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. SYED ALI, (A4), S/O. SYED MOHAMMED KHAN, SYED MANZIL, THETTIYODU PUTHENVEEDU, P.P.M.JUNCTION, PARASSALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. DR. BARNS JOY, GRACE NURSING HOME, KALIAKKAVILAI. BY ADV. SRI.SASTHAMANGALAM S. AJITHKUMAR SRI.PRABHU VIJAYAKUMAR SRI.SHAJIN S.HAMEED RESPONDENTS: ------------- THE DETECTIVE INSPECTOR, CRIME BRANCH, CBCID, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY P.P. SRI. P.N. SUKUMARAN. THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. ------------------------------------------------- B.A. No. 1249 of 2008 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 29th day of February, 2008 ORDER Application for anticipatory bail. The petitioners are the relatives of the husband of the de facto complainant. The 4th petitioner/5th accused is not a relative of the husband of the de facto complainant, it is submitted. The 4th petitioner is not arrayed as an accused so far, submits the learned Public Prosecutor. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioners prays, the learned Public Prosecutor does not oppose the said prayer and I am satisfied that the petitioners 1 to 3 can now be granted anticipatory bail and the prayer for anticipatory bail to the 4th petitioner can be dismissed holding that the apprehension of the 4th petitioner is without any basis. 3. I come to this conclusion on the basis of the B.A. No. 1249 of 2008 -: 2 :- submissions of both sides that subsequent to the registration of the crime, a divorce has been effected and all outstanding disputes between them have been settled. In the light of the submissions, it is unnecessary to advert to the facts in any greater detail in this order. 4. In the result, this petition, in so far as it relates to the 4th petitioner, is dismissed accepting the submissions of the learned Public Prosecutor that the 4th petitioner shall not be arrested in this crime. 5. This petition is allowed in favour of petitioners 1 to 3 i.e., accused 2 to 4. Following directions are issued under Sec.438 of the Cr.P.C: (i) Petitioners 1 to 3 shall appear before the learned Magistrate having jurisdiction at 11 a.m. on 7/3/08. They shall be released on regular bail on their executing bonds for Rs.25,000/- each with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate. (ii) The petitioners shall make themselves available for interrogation before the Investigating Officer between 10 a.m. and 1 p.m. on 11/3/08 and thereafter as and when directed by the Investigating Officer in writing to do so. (iii) If the petitioners do not appear before the learned B.A. No. 1249 of 2008 -: 3 :- Magistrate as directed in clause (i), directions issued above shall thereafter stand revoked and the police shall be at liberty to arrest the petitioners and deal with them in accordance with law as if these directions were not issued at all; (iv) If the petitioners were arrested prior to their surrender on 7/3/08 as directed in clause (i) above, they shall be released on their executing bonds for Rs.25,000/- each without any sureties undertaking to appear before the learned Magistrate on 7/3/08. Sd/- (R. BASANT, JUDGE) Nan/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge