IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA TUESDAY, THE 27TH JULY 2010 / 5TH SRAVANA 1932 Bail Appl..No. 4146 of 2010() ----------------------------- (CRIME NO.346/2010 OF SAKTHIKULANGARA POLICE STATION) PETITIONERS ------------------------------- 1. SARASWATHI, W/O.VELU,V.S.SADAMA PUTHEN THURA, NEEDAKARA VILLAGE,KOLLAM DISTRICT 2. SUJATHA, W/O.CHANDRA MOHAN V.S.SADAMA, PUTHEN THURA, NEEDAKARA VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT . BY ADV. SRI. K.SIJU SRI.A.MUHAMMED RAFFI SMT.BINDU GEORGE RESPONDENT(S): --------------- STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY S.I.OF POLICE, SAKTHIKULANGARA POLICE STATION THROUGH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.M.S.BREEZ THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J ----------------------- B.A No.4146 OF 2010 -------------------------------- Dated this the 27th day of July 2010 ORDER This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Sections 498(A), 323, 447 & 34 IPC. According to prosecution, first accused married de facto complainant on 01/01/2006 and thereafter, her husband and his close relatives were harassing de facto complainant physically and mentally. On 01/04/2010, all the accused, in furtherance of their common intention trespassed into de facto complainant's parental house and assaulted her and thereby committed various offences stated above. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that petitioners are the mother-in-law and co-sister of de facto complainant. They have not committed any acts, as alleged. But, there was some difference of opinion between de facto complainant and first accused and theyseparated, with effect from the end of 2006. The present allegation that petitioners committed trespass and assaulted de facto complainant etc. are all false. There are only general allegations against petitioners in the complaint, it is submitted. B.A No.4146 OF 2010 2 4. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that on investigation, offence under Section 323 and 447 are deleted finding that allegations constituting such offences are not true. It is also submitted that name of third accused was deleted from the array of accused. Originally petitioners were accused numbers 2 and 4 and now they are arrayed as accused numbers 2 and 3 respectively. There are only general allegations against petitioners and hence, he has no objection in granting anticipatory bail. 5. On hearing both sides, considering the nature of allegations made and the limited role of petitioners in the offence, I am satisfied that anticipatory bail can be granted to petitioners and hence, the following order is passed. (1) Petitioners shall, in the event of their arrest, be released on bail on their executing bond for Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) each with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the arresting officer on the following conditions: (i) Petitioners shall report before the Investigating Officer as and when directed and co-operate with investigation. (ii) Petitioner shall not influence or intimidate any witnesses or tamper with any evidence. B.A No.4146 OF 2010 3 (2) This order will be in force only for a period of 30 days from today. In the mean time, whether petitioners are arrested or not, they shall seek regular bail from the court concerned in accordance with law. Petition is allowed. K.HEMA JUDGE vdv