IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT TUESDAY, THE 22ND JANUARY 2008 / 2ND MAGHA 1929 Bail Appl..No. 253 of 2008() ---------------------------- CRIME NO.269 OF 2007 OF KODUMON POLICE STATION : PETITIONER/2ND AND 3RD ACCUSED ----------------------------------------------- 1. VIJAYA GEETHA, AGED 35 YEARS, D/O.KARTHIYAYNI, MARATHINALKARATTU HOUSE, ADOOR. 2. KARTHIYAYNI, AGED 65 YEARS, W/O.CHELLAPPAN, MARATHINALKARATTU HOUSE, ADOOR. BY ADV. SRI.R.ANIL SMT.RESHMI POULOSE RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT ------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.JAI GEORGE THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J ------------------------------------ B.A.No.253 of 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 22nd day of January, 2008 ORDER Application for anticipatory bail. Petitioners are accused 2 and 3 in a crime registered for offences punishable under Section 326 I.P.C. The crime has been registered on the basis of a private complaint filed before the Magistrate and referred by the Magistrate to the police under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. The alleged incident took place on 17.09.07. The defacto complainant with injuries was found lying on a road and on information received by the police from the local people, the police had gone to that place and had removed the injured to the hospital. No crime is seen registered by the police in respect of that incident. The defacto complainant was initially taken to one hospital and therefrom referred to the Medical College hospital. He underwent treatment there for a long time after his discharge. Realising that no crime has been registered in respect of the incident in which he suffered such major injury, the defacto complainant had filed a private complaint. It was accordingly that the crime was registered on reference under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. 2. Three persons face allegations. The petitioners are the wife (2nd accused) and mother in law (A3) of the defacto B.A.No.253 of 2008 2 complainant. The 1st accused is a cousin of the 2nd accused. He is an unmarried person. He was earlier involved in a murder case. He had undergone imprisonment. He has now been released from jail. There is strain in the relationship between the defacto complainant and the 2nd accused. They have a child aged about 15 years. They are residing separately because of the strain in the relationship. The defacto complainant is alleged to have been assaulted by the 1st accused on the public road when he was returning from the house of the brother of the 2nd accused. On the public road as extorted by the petitioners, the 1st accused is alleged to have assaulted the defacto complainant resulting in serious injuries including multiple fractures. The weapon used for the commission of offence has subsequently been recovered allegedly from the house occupied by accused 2 and 3. Investigation is in progress. The 1st accused has already been arrested and released on bail. The petitioner apprehends imminent arrest. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are absolutely innocent. The very story is riddled with improbabilities and can hardly be swallowed by a prudent mind. The real incident did not take place in the manner alleged B.A.No.253 of 2008 3 by the defacto complainant at all. The defacto complainant had come to the house of the 2nd accused and had allegedly started assaulting her. The 1st accused who happened to be present in the house as also accused 2 and 3 resisted the violent acts of the defacto complainant and in the melee which took place, the 1st accused as also the defacto complainant had suffered injuries. There was an understanding that complaint need not be made by either and that is why no crime happened to be registered from 17.09.07 to 22.12.07. Even going by the allegations raised by the defacto complainant, it is transparently evident that allegations against the petitioners are not justified and the theory of exhortation by accused 2 and 3 and their involvement in the incident is only to vex and harass the petitioners, submits the learned counsel for the petitioners. 4. In the nature of the allegations, the learned Public Prosecutor was requested to place the case diary after flagging the relevant pages. I have taken note of the long delay in the registration of the crime. I have taken note of the broad background and circumstances of the case. I have taken note of the nature of the precise allegations raised against accused 2 and 3, the petitioners herein. I have considered all the relevant B.A.No.253 of 2008 4 inputs. I am persuaded to agree with the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners can be granted anticipatory bail subject of course to strict and appropriate conditions which shall ensure the interest of a fair, efficient and expeditious investigation. At this early stage of investigation, I shall carefully avoid any more detailed discussions about the acceptability of the allegations or the credibility of the data collected. 5. In the result, the Bail Application is, allowed. The following directions are issued under Section 438 Cr.P.C. i) The petitioners shall appear before the learned Magistrate at 11 a.m on 29.01.08. They shall be enlarged on regular bail on their executing a bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only) 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 4 p.m on 30.01.08 and 31.01.08. During this period, the Investigating Officer shall be at liberty to interrogate the petitioners in custody and take all necessary steps the proper conduct of the investigation. Thereafter the petitioners shall make themselves available for interrogation before the B.A.No.253 of 2008 5 Investigating Officer between 10 a.m and 12 noon on all Mondays for a period of one month and subsequently as and when directed by the Investigating Officer in writing to do so; iii) If the petitioners do not appear before the learned 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 those directions were not issued at all; iv) If the petitioners were arrested prior to their surrender on 29.01.08 as directed in clause (1) above, they shall be released from custody on their executing a bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only) each without any sureties undertaking to appear before the learned Magistrate on 29.01.08. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) rtr/-