IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA TUESDAY, THE 14TH OCTOBER 2008 / 22ND ASWINA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 6295 of 2008() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.498/08 OF ARANMULA POLICE STATION PETITIONRES: APPLICANTS/ACCUSED 2 AND 4 ---------------------------------------------- 1. RAJESWARI ASOKAN ALIAS SHEELA ASOKAN, "AMBADY", PARUTHIYARA, ODANAVATTOM, KOTTARAKKARA. 2. G.ASOKAN, "AMBADY", PARUTHIYARA, DO. DO. BY ADV. SRI.N.SUKUMARAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF PROSECUTIONS, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ARANMULA POLICE STATION, ARANMULA, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI.K.S.SIVAKUMAR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. ----------------------------------------- B.A.No. 6295 of 2008 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 14th October, 2008 O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Sections 498A and 34 of Indian Penal Code. According to prosecution, petitioners are father-in-law and mother-in-law (accused 2 and 4) of the de facto complainant. They, along with other accused, including her husband, illtreated the de facto complainant by demanding more dowry and money and sent her out of their house. She was also physically tortured by them. Hence, a complaint was filed by the de facto complainant before the Magistrate Court, which was sent for investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C and a crime was registered. 3. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that the petitioners are the mother-in-law and father-in-law, aged 68 years and 67 years respectively. The de facto complainant was married by the first accused, who is their son, on 27.1.2008. After the marriage, they were living together as husband and wife at Bangalore. The petitioners have not committed any BA.6295/08 2 offence as alleged. In fact, the petitioners are not greedy for money or gold as evidenced from the facts mentioned in the complaint itself. The complaint is Annexure-A2. As per the allegations in the complaint, all the gold ornaments belonging to the de facto complainant were handed over by accused 1 and 2 to the de facto complainant's father under a receipt. The de facto complainant had 107 sovereigns and those were returned to her father, as admitted in the complaint. In such circumstances, petitioners seek anticipatory bail. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that there are allegations against the first petitioner, who is the mother-in- law, that on the very same day of the marriage, she had taken all the gold ornaments, except 'thali' from the de facto complainant and she had made comments whether those were genuine gold etc. However, it is submitted that the petitioners may be directed to surrender before the investigating officer for the purpose of investigation and subject to that, he has no objection in granting bail to the petitioners, particularly, considering their age. Hence, the following order is passed: BA.6295/08 3 Petitioners shall surrender before the Magistrate Court concerned within seven days from today and if bail application is filed, they shall 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 learned Magistrate, on the following conditions: i) Petitioners shall report before the investigating officer as and when directed and make themselves available for interrogation. ii) Petitioners shall co-operate with the investigation. iii) Petitioners shall not commit any offence while on bail and they shall not influence or intimidate any witness or tamper with evidence and in case of breach of this condition, bail is liable to be cancelled. Petition is allowed. K.HEMA, JUDGE vgs.