IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA TUESDAY, THE 13TH JULY 2010 / 22ND ASHADHA 1932 Bail Appl..No. 3829 of 2010() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.159/10 OF CHALISSERY POLICE STATION, PALAKKAD .................... (S): PETITIONER/ACCUSED: --------------------------------------- BIJU.P.T., S/O.THOMAS, 36 YEARS, PLAMPARAMBIL HOUSE, ARANGOTTUKARA P.O., PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.A.C.DEVY RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT: --------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.TEK CHAND. THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. ---------------------------------------------- Bail Application No.3829 of 2010 ---------------------------------------------- Dated 13th July, 2010. O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offence is under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. According to prosecution, petitioner married defacto complainant in the year 2005 and thereafter, while they were living together, defacto complainant was harassed physically and mentally by petitioner. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that defacto complainant was in the habit of stealing articles from various persons and many persons had come to petitioner's house and taken away the articles from the house. The defacto complainant had even issued lawyer notice to the persons, who made allegations against her. She also filed a complaint against the police officials. A private complaint was also filed against defacto complainant in respect of theft of certain household articles. (Documents are produced as Annexure A to F to establish these facts). Only later, petitioner came to know about this bad habit of defacto complainant. The defacto complainant did not BA NO.3829/10 2 improve, in spite of the advice given by petitioner and she left the house on her own volition and filed a false complaint against petitioner, it is submitted. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that there is an allegation that on two occasions within a year, petitioner had assaulted defacto complainant physically. About the mental harassment, there are only vague allegations. He has no objection in granting anticipatory bail to petitioner, it is submitted. 5. On hearing both sides, I am satisfied that anticipatory bail can be granted to petitioner on conditions. Hence, the following order is passed : (1) Petitioner shall, in the event of his arrest, be released on bail, on his executing a bond for Rs.25,000/- with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the arresting officer, on the following condition : Petitioner shall surrender before the Investigating Officer as and when directed and co-operate with the investigation. BA NO.3829/10 3 (2) This order will be in force only for a period of 15 days from today. In the meantime, petitioner shall seek regular bail from the court concerned. Petition is allowed. K.HEMA, JUDGE. tgs