IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA FRIDAY, THE 28TH MAY 2010 / 7TH JYAISHTA 1932 Bail Appl..No. 2633 of 2010() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.235/10 OF CHAVAKKAD POLICE STATION (S): PETITIONERS/ACCUSED --------------------------------------- 1. MAHESH, S/O.RAVINDRANATH, KADAKALAKATH HOUSE, NORTH BEACH, NADAKKAVU, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. 2. RAVINDRANATH, KADAKALAKATH HOUSE, NORTH BEACH, DO. DO. 3. CHANDRIKA, W/O.RAVINDRANATH HOUSE, KADAKALAKATH HOUSE, NORTH BEACH, NADAKKAVU, KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SRI.K.M.JAMALUDHEEN SMT.LATHA PRABHAKARAN RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT/STATE -------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.TEK CHAND. THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. ---------------------------------------------- Bail Application No.2633 of 2010 ---------------------------------------------- Dated 28th May, 2010. O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Sections 406, 420 and 498A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. According to prosecution, first accused married the defacto complainant on 7.5.2008 and a child was born in the wedlock. They were residing in Bangalore. The defacto complainant was tortured by first accused and his family members, physically and mentally and hence, she filed a complaint. Second and third petitioners are accused Nos.2 and 3, who are the father-in-law and mother-in-law of defacto complainant. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the marital relationship between first accused and defacto complainant strained and a divorce petition was filed by first accused against defacto complainant. Thereafter, defacto complainant filed a petition for return of articles and also another petition for maintenance. A case was filed under the provisions of the Prohibition of Domestic Violence Act also. The case was BA NO.2633/10 2 posted for compromise at the Lok Adalath, but petitioners could not appear. Therefore, defacto complainant filed the present complaint. Petitioners are absolutely innocent of the allegations made, it is submitted. First accused is an Engineer. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that as against second and third accused, there are no serious allegations and hence, he has no objection in granting anticipatory bail to them. However, the complaint discloses very serious allegations against first accused and hence, this petition is opposed in so far as it relates to him. 5. On hearing both sides and on going through the allegations made in the complaint, I am satisfied of the submissions made by learned Public Prosecutor. I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to first accused, but petitioners 2 and 3 can be granted anticipatory bail and hence, the following order is passed: (1) The prayer for anticipatory bail by first accused is rejected. (2) Petitioners 2 and 3 shall surrender before the Magistrate Court concerned within seven days from today and they shall be released on bail on their BA NO.2633/10 3 executing bond for Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) each with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate, on the following conditions : (i) Petitioners 2 and 3 shall report before the Investigating Officer as and when directed and co-operate with the investigation. (ii) They shall not influence or intimidate any witness. Petition is partly allowed. K.HEMA, JUDGE. tgs