IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR TUESDAY, THE 5TH MAY 2009 / 15TH VAISAKHA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 2264 of 2009 ------------------------------------ (CRIME NO.172/2009 OF SASTHAMCOTTA POLICE STATION) PETITIONERS/ACCUSED-A1 TO 3 ----------------------------------------------- 1. MANOJ,S/O.KOCHUKUNJU,PALLAKKAT MELATHIL, PUTHANAMBLALAM MURI,IVERKALA, KUNNATHUR VILLAGE, KOLLAM DIST. 2. KOCHUKUNJU, PALLAKKAT MELATHIL, PUTHANAMBALAM MURI,IVERKALA, KUNNATHUR VILLAGE, KOLLAM DIST. 3. SARADA, PALLAKKAT MELATHIL, PUTHANAMBALM MURI,IVERKALA, KUNNATHUR VILLAGE, KOLLAM DIST. BY ADV. SRI.P.V.DILEEP RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT ------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.C.M.NAZAR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05/05/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: C.T.RAVIKUMAR, J. ------------------------------------------- B.A.No.2264 of 2009 ------------------------------------------ Dated, this the 5th day of May, 2009 ORDER This is an application filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for anticipatory bail. Petitioners are accused Nos.1 to 3 in Crime No.172 of 2009 of Sasthamcotta Police Station alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 498(A), 406 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code. The first petitioner is the husband of the de facto complainant and petitioners 2 and 3 are his parents. 2. The crux of the allegations levelled against the petitioners is that they had tortured the de facto complainant both mentally and physically by demanding dowry. The marriage between the first petitioner and the de facto complainant was solemnized on 4.2.2004 and it is the case of the petitioners that now the first petitioner and the de facto complainant are living separately. 3. It is now as a parthian shot that the de facto complainant, the wife, has now filed the complaint against the petitioners, according to the petitioners. The petitioners now B.A.No.2264 of 2009 2 apprehend arrest in connection with the aforesaid crime involving non bailable offences. 4. Considering the nature of the allegations levelled against the petitioners, I think they can be granted anticipatory bail. Accordingly, this application is allowed on the following terms: i) In the event of their arrest, the petitioners shall be released on bail on each of them executing a bond for Rs.50000/- with two solvent sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the officer conducting the arrest. ii) Petitioners shall not tamper with or attempt to tamper with evidence or intimidate or influence or attempt to intimidate or influence the witnesses. iii) This order will be in force for a period of two months and thereafter the petitioners shall move for regular bail before the court having competent jurisdiction. C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE vns