IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR WEDNESDAY, THE 20TH OCTOBER 2010 / 28TH ASWINA 1932 Bail Appl..No. 6067 of 2010() ---------------------------------------------- CR.NO.72/2010 OF UDUMBANCHOLA EXCISE RANGE CMP.5073/2010 of J.M.F.C.,NEDUMKANDOM .................... PETITIONER/ACCUSED: --------------------------------------- PRABHAKARAN, S/O.KOCHUKUTTY, AGED 53 YEARS, PERUMBANANIKKAL VEEDU, KYLASAM KARA, UDUMBANCHOLA VILLAGE, UDUMBANCHOLA TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.S.RAJEEV RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT: ----------------------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM (C.R.72/2010 OF UDUMBANCHOLA EXCISE RANGE, IDUKKI DISTRICT.) PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.C.S.HRITHWIK THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J ----------------------- B.A No.6067 OF 2010 -------------------------------- Dated this the 16th day of June 2010 ORDER This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Sections 498 A r/w 34 IPC. According to prosecution, first accused married de facto complainant on 11/06/2006 and a child was born in the wedlock. After the marriage, husband and his near relatives harassed her, demanding more dowry. First accused also disputed paternity of the child and she was treated with cruelty. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that there is difference in the place of occurrence stated in the private complaint and FIR. First accused was residing in a rented house at the time of alleged offence. Matter can be settled, since it is a dispute between husband and wife, it is submitted. 4. This petition is opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that even the paternity was disputed by first accused and de facto complainant was subjected to cruelty disputing paternity. The matter was once referred to Lok Adalat. DNA test was conducted in this case and paternity of the child is confirmed as that of petitioner. As far as accused numbers 2 to 4 are concerned, he has no objection in granting anticipatory bail, since the main allegations are made against first accused. B.A No.6067 OF 2010 2 5. On hearing both sides, I am satisfied that there are serious allegations against first accused. Though the matter was referred to Lok Adalat and paternity is proved as per DNA report, matter was not settled. It is also seen from the records that a memo was submitted by de facto complainant stating that first accused told her that even if paternity of the child is proved against him, she cannot do anything, once he goes to Gulf. However, I find that on considering the facts and circumstances of the case, anticipatory bail can be granted to accused numbers 2 to 4 who are the mother-in-law, brother-in-law and sister-in-law. But, first accused has not made out any ground to get anticipatory bail. Hence, the following order is passed. (1) The prayer for anticipatory bail by first accused is rejected. He shall surrender before Investigating Officer and co-operate with investigation without any delay. (2) Petitioners 2 to 4 are directed to surrender before the Magistrate Court concerned within seven days from today. (3) On such surrender, they shall be released on bail on their executing bond for Rs.25,000/- (Rupees B.A No.6067 OF 2010 3 twenty five thousand only) each with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate on the following conditions: (i) They shall report before the Investigating Officer as and when directed and co-operate with investigation. (ii) They shall not influence or intimidate any witnesses or tamper with any evidence. Petition is partly allowed. K.HEMA JUDGE vdv