IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA TUESDAY, THE 2ND DECEMBER 2008 / 11TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 7214 of 2008() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.443/08 OF KOOTHATTUKULAM POLICE STATION PETITIONER/ACCUSED:- ---------------------------------------- K.G. SURESH, AGED 40 YEARS, S/O. GOVINDAN (LATE), KUDUKKAPARAYIL HOUSE, MONIPPALLY P.O., KOTTAYAM DIST. BY ADV. SRI.NIREESH MATHEW RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAING:- -------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KOOTHATTUKULAM POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM DIST, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI.M.S.BREEZE THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. --------------------------------------------- B.A.No.7214 of 2008 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 2nd December, 2008 O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offence is under Section 498A IPC. According to prosecution, petitioner married defacto complainant on 27.4.2008. After the marriage, he took away her gold ornaments and insisted to bring more money. She was harassed by petitioner and she left the matrimonial house. She filed a complaint against petitioner. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that petitioner married the defacto complainant on 27.4.2008 and she was insisting that he should take at a place situated a house away from the family house. Petitioner has his aged mother, who is dependent solely on him. But, in spite of all these, he took a house at a distance of 15 kms. away from his own house even though he is only a coolie. Even then, defacto complainant was making more demands and ultimately she left the house. It is a fit case were settlement can be arrived at and therefore, petitioner approached the SNDP union for settlement. The matter was posted to 13.11.2008, on which day, defacto complainant's father appeared. But, it was submitted that she could not appear since she was having some problems in connection with the BA No.7214 /2008 2 pregnancy. Earnest attempts are taken to settle the matter and if anticipatory bail is refused, the chance for settlement will be lost, it is submitted. It is also pointed out that defacto complainant is pregnant. 4. Learned public prosecutor submitted that the marriage took place only about eight months back and it is a case where the matter must be settled. Therefore, on hearing both sides, I find that anticipatory bail can be granted to the petitioner on conditions. Hence, the following order is passed: Petitioner shall surrender before the Magistrate Court concerned and he shall be released on bail on his executing bond for Rs.25,000/- with two solvent sureties each for like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate on the following conditions: (i) Petitioner shall report before the Investigating Officer as and when directed and co-operate with investigation and make himself available for interrogation. (ii) Petitioner shall not influence or intimidate any witness or commit any offence while on bail. The petition is allowed. K.HEMA, JUDGE csl