IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN MONDAY, THE 22ND AUGUST 2011 / 31ST SRAVANA 1933 Bail Appl..No. 5570 of 2011 CRIME NO.824 OF 2011 OF KODUNGALLUR POLICE STATION PETITIONERS: ACCUSED NOS.2 TO 8: 1. ABDUL LATHEEF, S/O.PADINJARE VEETTIL KOCHU MOIDEEN, AGED 62 YEARS, AZHIKODE VILLAGE AZHIKODE JETTY PO, KODUNGALLUR TALUK. 2. SUBAIDA, W/O. ABDUL LATHEEF, AGED 58 YEARS,AZHIKODE VILLAGE , AZHIKODE JETTY PO, KODUNGALLUR TALUK. 3. MUHAMMED ZIYAD, S/O.ABDUL LATHEEF, AGED 27 YEARS,AZHIKODE VILLAGE , AZHIKODE JETTY PO, KODUNGALLUR TALUK. 4. SHAMEENA, D/O. ABDUL LATHEEF, AGED 25 YEARS, AZHIKODE VILLAGE , AZHIKODE JETTY PO, KODUNGALLUR TALUK. 5. RAHIM, S/O.PADINJARE VEETTIL KOCHU MOIDEEN, AGED 54 YEARS, AZHIKODE VILLAGE , AZHIKODE JETTY PO, KODUNGALLUR TALUK. 6. RUKIYA, W/O.RAHIM,PADINJARE VEETTIL AZHIKODE VILLAGE , AZHIKODE JETTY PO, KODUNGALLUR TALUK. 7. JABBAR, S/O. PADINJARE VEETTIL KOCHU MOIDEEN, AZHIKODE VILLAGE , AZHIKODE JETTY PO, KODUNGALLUR TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.V.M.KRISHNAKUMAR RESPONDENTS:COMPLAINANT: 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE KODUNGALLUR POLICE STATION PIN 680 664. ADV. SRI.SOORAJ T.ELENJICKAL FOR DEFACTO COMPLAINANT PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.V.MANU THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------ Bail Appl. NO. 5570 OF 2011 ------------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 22nd day of August, 2011 O R D E R This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioners are accused Nos.2 to 8 in Crime No.824 of 2011 of Kodungallur Police Station. 2. The offences alleged against the accused are under Sections 498A, 354, 506(ii) and 294(b) read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned counsel appearing for the de facto complainant and the learned Public Prosecutor. Petitioners 1 and 2 are the parents of accused No.1. Accused No.1 is the husband of the de facto complainant. Petitioners 3 and 4 are the brother and sister of accused No.1. Petitioner No.5 is the brother of petitioner No.1, petitioner No.6 is the wife of petitioner No.5 and petitioner No.7 is another brother of petitioner No.1. Bail Application NO.5570 of 2011 :: 2 :: 4. When the Bail Application came up for hearing on 13.7.2011, the following order was passed: “After having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel who appeared for the de facto complainant, I am of the view that there are elements of settlement, which, if explored properly, the disputes between the parties could be amicably settled at the Mediation Centre. It is submitted that the first accused (Riyas), who is the husband of the de facto complainant, is employed in Gulf. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the parents of Riyas can very well participate in the settlement talks on behalf of their son, the first accused. The de facto complainant is present in person before Court. It is agreed that the parties will appear before the Mediation Centre on 25th July, 2011. The parents of the de facto complainant also would be permitted to appear before the Mediation Centre. The petitioners shall not be arrested in connection with Crime No.824 of 2011 of Kodungallur Police Station till the matter is considered by the Mediation Centre.” 5. The parties appeared before the Mediation Centre. However, the Mediator reported that the disputes could not be settled. Annexures II and III also would indicate that the settlement Bail Application NO.5570 of 2011 :: 3 :: talks initiated by the Mahals to which the de facto complainant and her husband belong, also failed. 6. Allegations and counter allegations are made by both parties. According to the de facto complainant, her husband and relatives were very cruel towards her right from the inception of the marriage. According to the accused, the de facto complainant had developed some intimacy with a stranger after the husband of the de facto complainant went abroad. It is not necessary to consider the allegations and counter allegations made by the respective parties while disposing of this Bail Application. 7. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of the offence, the injury sustained and other circumstances, I am of the view that anticipatory bail can be granted to the petitioners. There will be a direction that in the event of the arrest of the petitioners, the officer in charge of the police station shall release them on bail on their executing bond for Rupees Ten thousand each with two solvent sureties for the like amount to the satisfaction of the officer concerned, subject to the following conditions: Bail Application NO.5570 of 2011 :: 4 :: a) The third petitioner shall report before the investigating officer between 9 A.M. and 11 A.M. on all Mondays, till the final report is filed or until further orders; b) The petitioners shall appear before the investigating officer for interrogation as and when required; c) The petitioners shall not try to influence the prosecution witnesses or tamper with the evidence; d) The petitioners shall not commit any offence or indulge in any prejudicial activity while on bail; e) In case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, the bail shall be liable to be cancelled. The Bail Application is allowed to the extent indicated above. (K.T.SANKARAN) Judge ahz/