IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA WEDNESDAY, THE 15TH OCTOBER 2008 / 23RD ASWINA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 5213 of 2008() ----------------------------- CRMP.3079/2008 of D.C.& SESSIONS COURT,THODUPUZHA CRIME NO.704/08 OF THODUPUZHA POLICE STATION PETITIONERS/ ACCUSED ---------------------------------------- 1. P.S.BIJU, AGED 27 YEARS, S/O.SREEDHARAN ACHARI, PUTHENVEETTIL HOUSE, ALAKODE KARA, ALAKODE VILLAGE, THODUPUZHA TALUK. 2. P.K.SREEDHARAN ACHARI @ MANI, AGED 62 YEARS, PUTHENVEETTIL HOUSE, ALAKODE KARA, ALAKODE VILLAGE, THODUPUZHA TALUK. ] 3. ALLIYAMMAL, AGED 60 YEARS, W/O.P.K.SREEDHARAN ACHARI, PUTHENVEETTIL HOUSE, ALAKODE KARA, ALAKKODE VILLAGE, THODUPUZHA TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.RENJITH B.MARAR SRI.L.RAJESH NARAYAN RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT -------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, THODUPUZHAL POLICE STATION, THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI.K.S.SIVAKUMAR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. ----------------------------------------- B.A.No. 5213 of 2008 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 15th October, 2008 O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offence is under Section 489A of the Indian Penal Code. According to prosecution, de facto complainant was married by the first petitioner (first accused) on 3.2.2008 and thereafter, she was living in the petitioner's house. Second and third petitioners (accused 2 and 3) are the father-in-law and mother-in-law. Prosecution case is that the de facto complainant was illtreated at the house of the petitioners without allowing her to go for job and without permitting her to meet her relatives etc. She was physically and mentally harassed at the house of the petitioners. She left the house on 3.6.2008. 3. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that the allegations are not correct. Annexure-B is a certificate issued by the employer of the de facto complainant, which shows that she was working in his institution and doing DTP work and getting money also. It is also submitted that Annexure-C BA.5213/08 2 affidavit filed by the Vice-President of the Panchayat will show that the de facto complainant was not even available in the house after 31.5.2008. His affidavit reveals that he had seen the de facto complainant being taken to her own house by her parents and thereafter, she has not returned. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that serious allegations are made against the first accused and not specifically against second and third accused. It is submitted that petitioners may be directed to appear before the investigating officer and co-operate with the investigation and subject to that condition, he has no objection in granting anticipatory bail. On hearing both sides, I find that the following order can be passed: i) Petitioners shall surrender before the investigating officer within seven days from today and co-operate with the investigation and make themselves available for interrogation. BA.5213/08 3 ii) Petitioners shall, in the event of their arrest, be released on bail on their executing bond for Rs.25,000/- each with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the arresting officer, on the following conditions: a) Petitioners shall report before the investigating officer as and when directed. b) Petitioners shall co-operate with the investigation. c) Petitioners shall not influence or intimidate any witnesses or commit any offence while on bail. Petition is allowed. K.HEMA, JUDGE vgs.