IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN FRIDAY, THE 19TH MARCH 2010 / 28TH PHALGUNA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 1588 of 2010() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.3/2010 OF GUTTIKHDAN POLICE STATION, NAGPUR PETITIONERS/ACCUSED : ------------------------------------ 1. JOY JAMES, AGED 47 YEARS, S/O.JAMES, PUTHEN KANDATHIL HOUSE, KANNMPALAM, VADASSERIKKARA VILLAGE, RANNI TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. 2. ANITHA SUGATHAN, AGED 50 YEARS, W/O.SUGATHAN, PARACKAL PUTHEN VEEDU, KANNMPALAM, VADASSERIKKARA VILLAGE, RANNI TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.V.SETHUNATH RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT/STATE -------------------------------------------------------- 1. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. 2. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, RANNI POLICE STATION. 3. THE DEPUTY S.P.OF POLICE THIRUVALLA. 4. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, GUTIKHDAN POLICE STATION, NAGPUR, MAHARASHTRA STATE. 5. JOY MATHEW, AGED 42 YEARS, S/O.K.C.MATHEW,RESIDING AT KOTTUNKAL HOUSE, CHALAPPALY.P.O.,EZHUMATTOOR, PATHANAMTHITTA ISTRICT (DEFACTO COMPLINANT) 6. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.M.S.BREEZ THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. --------------------------------------------- B.A.No.1588 of 2010 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 19th day of March, 2010 O R D E R Arun, the son of the first petitioner Joy James, was staying in the house of Joy Mathew, the fifth respondent, at Nagpur. Arun was employed in Nagpur. Joy Mathew is the husband of the first petitioner's wife's sister. The allegation is that Arun enticed away the minor daughter of Joy Mathew. Joy Mathew filed Writ Petition (Crl.) No.35 of 2010 before this Court for the issue of a writ of Habeas Corpus to produce his minor daughter before court. That Writ Petition was disposed of as per Annexure 4 judgment dated 23rd February 2010 directing the Writ Petitioner Joy Mathew to approach the Nagpur police for initiating appropriate action against Arun. Accordingly, the Kerala police was also directed to do the needful and to send a report to the Superintendent of Police, Nagpur. 2. It is stated by the learned counsel appearing for Joy Mathew, the 5th respondent, that a petition was filed before the Nagpur Sadar Police Station and Crime No.73 of 2010 was registered against Arun for the offence under Section 366A of BA No.1588/2010 2 the Indian Penal Code. 3. The petitioners, the father of Arun and the sister of the first petitioner, apprehend arrest in Crime No.73 of 2010 of Nagpur City Sadar Police Station and therefore, they have moved this application for anticipatory bail. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the 5th respondent vehemently opposed the Bail Application. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the prayer of the petitioners is only to grant a breathing time, so that they could appear before the appropriate court having jurisdiction and seek regular bail or approach any other court having jurisdiction for any other appropriate relief. 6. In C.I.Mathew vs. Government of India (1984 KLT 942), Madhusoodanan vs. Superintendent of Police (1992(2) KLT 83) and in Koshy vs. State of Kerala (2010(1) KLT 945), it was held that in respect of an offence committed outside the jurisdiction of a High Court, anticipatory bail can be granted by the High Court for a limited period to enable the accused to resort to appropriate remedies before the court having jurisdiction. BA No.1588/2010 3 7. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the Bail Application is disposed of as follows: The petitioners, if arrested by the respondents, shall be released on bail for a period of one month on their executing bond for Rs.25,000/-. The petitioners shall appear before the court having jurisdiction in respect of Crime No.73 of 2010 of Nagpur City Sadar Police Station and seek appropriate remedies within the aforesaid period of one month, unless otherwise made unnecessary as per an order passed by a competent court. K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE csl