IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN WEDNESDAY, THE 29TH JULY 2009 / 7TH SRAVANA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 4149 of 2009() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.604/2009 OF KUNNAMKULAM POLICE STATION PETITIONER/ACCUSED -------------------------------------- K.C.JOJI, AGED 41 YEARS, S/O.K.K.CHINNAN, KANNANAIKKAL HOUSE, P.O.CHOWANNUR, VIA.KUNNAMKULAM, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.SANTHEEP ANKARATH RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT -------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTING SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KUNNAMKULAM POLICE STATION. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.TEKCHAND THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. --------------------------------------------- B.A.No. 4149 of 2009 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 29th day of July, 2009 ORDER This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner is the accused in Crime No.604 of 2009 of Kunnamkulam Police Station. 2. The offence alleged against the petitioner is under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The defacto complainant filed a petition dated 9.6.2009 before the District Superintendent of Police, Thrissur. As directed by the District Superintendent of Police, the crime was registered. The petitioner filed a Bail Application for anticipatory bail before the learned Sessions Judge which was dismissed as per the order dated 29th June 2009. Annexure AI is the petition filed by the defacto complainant before the Superintendent of Police. The petition discloses that the marriage between the parties took place in 1998. On several occasions, the defacto complainant had gone to Dubai along with the accused and at last she came back to Kerala on 3.12.2007. BA No.4149/2009 2 The petition would also disclose that she has filed a petition for divorce. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petition for divorce before the Family Court was filed on 15.12.2008. 4. Normally, the allegations made against the petitioner in the petition filed by his wife would disentitle the petitioner to get an order for anticipatory bail. But, the fact remains that though the defacto complainant came back to Kerala on 3.12.2007, the petition containing all these allegations was filed only in June 2009. It is to be noted that a petition for divorce was filed by her in December 2008 and most of the allegations which were made in the complaint have been made in the petition for divorce. 5. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of the offence 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 Rs.50,000/- with two solvent sureties for the like amount to the satisfaction of the BA No.4149/2009 3 officer concerned, subject to the following conditions: a) The petitioner shall report before the investigating officer between 9 A.M. and 11 A.M. on all Mondays, till the final report is filed or until further orders; b) The petitioner shall appear before the investigating officer for interrogation as and when required; c) The petitioner shall not try to influence the prosecution witnesses or tamper with the evidence; d) The petitioner shall not commit any offence or indulge in any prejudicial activity while on bail; e) In case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, the bail shall be liable to be cancelled. The Bail Application is allowed to the extent indicated above. K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE csl BA No.4149/2009 4