IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA THURSDAY, THE 18TH SEPTEMBER 2008 / 27TH BHADRA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 5735 of 2008() ----------------------------- (CRIME NO.454/2008 OF CHOKLI POLICE STATION) PETITIONERS/ACCUSED:- -------------------------------------- 1. ASHKAR, S/O MOOSA, AGED 26 YEARS, SUHARA VILLA, NANGARATH PEEDIKA, MADAPEDIKA, TEMPLE GATE, THALASSERY. 2. MOOSA,FATHER OF ASHKAR, AGED 55 YEARS, DO..... 3. SUBARA, W/O MOOSA, AGED 48 YEARS, DO..... 4. AYSHA, D/O MOOSA, AGED 34 YEARS, DO... 5. SEENATH, D/O MOOSA, AGED 30 YEARS, DO.. 6. NASEERA, D/O MOOSA, AGED 28 YEARS, DO.. BY ADV. SRI.C.P.PEETHAMBARAN RESPONDENTS: ------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE S.H.O, CHOKLI POLICE STATION, KANNUR DISTRICT, THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERLA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.K.S. SIVAKUMAR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K. HEMA, J. ------------------------------------------------ Bail Appl.No. 5735 of 2008 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 18th day of September, 2008. ORDER Petition for anticipatory bail. 2. A complaint was filed by the de facto complainant alleging offences under Section 498(A), 420 and 34 of IPC against the petitioners before the Magistrate Court. The said complaint was forwarded under Section 156(3) of the Code for investigation and a crime was registered against the petitioners. Petitioners are the husband, mother-in-law and sisters-in-law of the de facto complainant, who allegedly treated the petitioner with cruelty after the marriage. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that there is inordinate delay in lodging the complaint. If the allegations made in the compliant are true, a complaint would have been filed before the police immediately, but, four months were taken to file a complaint before the Court, it is submitted. It is also submitted that complaint is drafted under legal advice and hence all the members of the family are implicated in the complaint. [B.A.No.5735/08] 2 The sisters-in-law of de facto complainant are residing in different houses after their marriage and they have absolutely nothing to do with the alleged offence. False allegations are made against the mother-in-law and other accused, it is submitted. 4. This petition is opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the allegations made against the petitioners, particularly, the first and second accused, are serious in nature. It is alleged that the 2nd accused, who is the father-in-law, had allegedly molested the de facto complainant after the marriage. The ill-treatment started by demand of dowry since the very next day of the marriage itself. However, he has no objection in granting bail to the female members of the family. In the above circumstances, the following order is passed: 1) The request for anticipatory bail by the first and second accused is rejected. They shall report before the investigating officer or the Magistrate court concerned within 7 days from today. 2) The petitioners 3 to 6 shall surrender before the Magistrate court concerned within 7 days from today and, if any bail application is filed, they shall be released on bail on their executing bond for Rs.25,000/- each with two solvent sureties each for [B.A.No.5735/08] 3 the like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate on the following conditions: i) They shall make themselves available for interrogation by the police as and when directed. ii) They shall co-operate with the investigation. Iii) They shall not influence or intimidate any witness or commit any offence while on bail. Petition is partly allowed. Sd/- K. HEMA, JUDGE. Krs. //True Copy // P.S. to Judge.