IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA THURSDAY, THE 22ND JANUARY 2009 / 2ND MAGHA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 17 of 2009() --------------------------- (CRIME NUMBER NOT KNOWN) PETITIONER (S): -------------------- 1. ABDUL SAMAD, S/O.P.M.MAHMOOD, DARUL FLAH, PERINGADI, UPPALA, PO.UPPALA, KASARAGOD. 2. SUBAIDA, W/O.P.M.MAHMOOD, DO. 3. P.M.MAHMOOD, S/O.MAMMINAI, DO.DO. 4. MUMTAZ, W/O.ABDU KHADER, MUBARAK MANZIL, OPP.KARODA MASJID, MANJESHWAR, KASARAGOD. 5. ABDUL IRSHAD, S/O.P.M.MAHMOOD, DARUL FALAH, PERINGADI, UPPALA, KASARAGOD. BY ADV. SRI.K.V.SOHAN SMT.SREEJA SOHAN.K. RESPONDENT(S): --------------- STATE , REP. BY S.H.O., KUMBALA, KASARAGOD, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI K.S.SIVAKUMAR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/01/2009, ALONG WITH BA NO. 146 OF 2009 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K. HEMA, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= B.A. Nos 17 & 146 of 2009 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this the 22nd day of January,2009 O R D E R Petitions for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under sections 498A read with section 34 IPC. According to prosecution, de facto complainant was married by 1st accused. After the marriage, she lived in matrimonial house and she was harassed by 1st accused/husband and his family members who are accused 2 to 6. Accused 1 to 5 are petitioners in B.A.no.17/2009 and 6th accused is petitioner in B.A. no.146/2009. 3. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that there are only general allegations, as in any other case, under section 498A IPC. Petitioners are absolutely innocent of the allegations made. De facto complainant went to her house and thereafter, she did not return. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that as against 1st accused husband, there are specific allegations of physical and mental cruelty and application by him is opposed. As far as other relatives of the 1st accused husband are concerned, he has no objection in granting anticipatory bail, it is submitted. 5. On hearing both sides, considering the facts and circumstances, I find that anticipatory bail can be granted to BA 17/2009 & con. case. -2- accused 2 to 6, but considering the nature of allegations made against 1st accused, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to him. Hence, the following order is passed:- (1) Accused 2 to 6 shall surrender before the Magistrate court concerned within seven days from today and they shall be released on bail, on their executing a bond for Rs. 25,000/- each with two solvent sureties each, for the like amount, to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate, on the following conditions:- i) They shall make themselves available for interrogation by the Investigating Officer as and when directed. ii) They shall shall not intimidate or influence any witness or commit any offence while on bail. (2) Request for anticipatory bail by 1st accused is rejected. He is directed to surrender before the Magistrate court concerned or before the Investigating Officer without any delay and co-operate with the investigation. BA 17/2009 & con. case. -3- Whether he surrenders or not, police is at liberty to arrest him and proceed in accordance with law. B.A. no.146/2009 is allowed and B.A. no.17/2009 is partly allowed. K.HEMA, JUDGE. mn.