IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN WEDNESDAY, THE 14TH DECEMBER 2011 / 23RD AGRAHAYANA 1933 Bail Appl..No. 10194 of 2011() ------------------------------ AGAINST THE ORDER IN BA.7131/2010 Dated 13/10/2011 CRIME NO.781 OF 2011 OF PARAVOOR POLICE STATION, KOLLAM DT. .................... PETITIONER ------------------------------ SUBHASH VIJAYAN, S/O.VIJAYAN, POOPPARAMBIL VEEDU, PALAPRA, KANJIRAPPALLY KOTTAYAM BY ADV. SRI. K.SIJU SMT.BINDU GEORGE RESPONDENT: --------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY S.I.OF POLICE,PARAVOOR POLICE STATION THROUGH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM BY P.P.SMT.R.REMA THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14/12/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. --------------------------------- B.A. No.10194 OF 2011 --------------------------------- Dated this the 14th day of December, 2011 ORDER This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Petitioner is accused No.1 in Crime No.781 of 2011 of Paravoor Police Station, Kollam District. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 498A, 452 and 511 of 376 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. Accused Nos. 2 to 4 filed B.A.No.7131 of 2011 for anticipatory bail, and it was allowed as per the order dated 13th October, 2011. Paragraphs 3 and 4 of the order dated 13th October, 2011 in B.A.No.7131 of 2011 are extracted below: “3. Accused No.2 is the father-in-law and accused Nos.3 and 4 are the mother-in- B.A.No. 10194 OF 2011 2 law and the sister-in-law of the de facto complainant. The first accused is the husband of the de facto complainant. The first accused is working abroad. Very serious allegations are made in the complaint filed by the de facto complainant before the Magistrate's Court. The complaint was forwarded to the Police for investigation under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. and accordingly the crime was registered as Crime No.781 of 2011 of Paravur Police Station. The petitioners apprehend arrest and therefore they have moved this application for anticipatory bail. I have gone through the averments in the bail application and the documents produced as Annexures-2 and 3 series as well as the counter affidavit filed by the de facto complainant. It is seen that the petition filed by the de facto complainant is pending before the Family Court as O.P.No.766 of 2011. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that in O.P.No.766 of 2011, the allegation made by the de facto complainant herein is that her father-in-law tried to outrage her modesty, while in the complaint it is specifically alleged that he attempted to commit rape. The counsel relied on various E- mail messages allegedly sent by the de facto complainant to show that the allegations made against the petitioners are patently false. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that what the de facto complainant wanted was a divorce in order to enable her to go with another man. It is not necessary to arrive at any finding on these allegations and counter allegations. These are matters to be considered in the Family Court, where the case is pending or in any other appropriate legal proceedings. The question involved in the bail application is only whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioners. Though no final conclusion could be arrived at, at this stage about the case put forwarded by the B.A.No. 10194 OF 2011 3 petitioners, prima facie, I am of the view that there is substance in the contention put forwarded by the petitioners.” 4. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of the offence, the injury sustained and other circumstances, I am of the view that anticipatory bail can be granted to the petitioner . There will be a direction that in the event of the arrest of the petitioner, the officer in charge of the police station shall release him on bail on his executing bond for `10,000/-(Rupees Ten thousand only) with two solvent sureties for the like amount to the satisfaction of the officer concerned, subject to the following conditions: A) The petitioner shall appear before the investigating officer for interrogation as and when required; B) The petitioner shall not try to influence the prosecution witnesses or tamper with the evidence. C) The petitioner shall not commit any offence or indulge in any prejudicial activity while on bail. D) The petitioner shall cooperate with the investigating officer in the matter of investigation. E) In case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, the bail shall be liable to be cancelled. B.A.No. 10194 OF 2011 4 The Bail Application is allowed to the extent indicated above. K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE. cms