IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN TUESDAY, THE 6TH DECEMBER 2011 / 15TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 Bail Appl..No. 8909 of 2011() ------------------------- CRIME NO.870/2011 OF VALAPPAD POLICE STATION, THRISSUR PETITIONERS : ACCUSED : ----------------------- 1. PARAMU,AGED 72 YEARS, S/O.SANKARAN, THARAMEL HOUSE, MANATHALA VILLAGE DESOM, CHAVAKKAD TALUK 2. THANKAM, AGED 60 YEARS, W/O.PARAMU, THARAMEL HOUSE, MANATHALA VILLAGE, DESOM, CHAVAKKAD TALUK BY ADV. SRI.S.RAJEEV SRI.K.K.DHEERENDRAKRISHNAN RESPONDENT: --------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM (CRIME NO.870/2011 OF VALAPPAD POLICE STATION, THRISSUR DIST) PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.K.K.RAJEEV THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/12/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. --------------------------------------------- Bail Appln.No.8909 of 2011 ---------------------------------------------- Dated this the 06th day of December, 2011 ORDER This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioners are accused Nos.2 and 3 in Crime No.870 of 2011 of Valappad Police Station, Thrissur District. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioners are under Sections 417 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. 3. When the Bail Application came up for admission on 23/11/2011, the following order was passed: “3. The de facto complainant filed a complaint before the Magistrate's Court, which was forwarded to the police for investigation under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Accordingly, the crime was registered. 4. The marriage between the daughter of the de facto complainant and the first accused was scheduled to be held on 15/07/2011. The engagement was on 02/07/2011. On 08/07/2011, Bail Appln.No.8909/2011 : 2 : accused No.1 went along with another girl. The marriage between him and the daughter of the de facto complainant did not take place. Disputes arose between the parties. Annexure-I notice was issued by the de facto complainant claiming a sum of Rupees Three lakhs as damages, which was limited to Rupees Two lakhs. The allegation in the present case is that accused Nos.1 to 3 demanded dowry of Rupees Five lakhs and 19 sovereigns of gold ornaments. Since they did not get it, the marriage was not solemnized. 5. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case and the nature of the offences, I am of the view that before considering the question of granting anticipatory bail, the first petitioner should be directed to appear before the investigating officer. Accordingly, there will be a direction to the first petitioner to appear before the investigating officer on 28/11/2011 and 29/11/2011. 6. Post on 06/12/2011. 7. It is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that the petitioners will not be arrested in connection with Crime No.870 of 2011 of Valappad Police Station, till 09/12/2011. 8. The petitioners shall co-operate with the investigating officer in the matter of investigation and for recovery of incriminating materials, if any. Bail Appln.No.8909/2011 : 3 : 4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the direction in the order dated 23/11/2011 has been complied with by the petitioners. 5. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of the offences and also taking note of the fact that the direction in the order dated 23/11/2011 has been complied with by the petitioners, 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 `10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) each with two solvent sureties for the like amount to the satisfaction of the officer concerned, subject to the following conditions: a) The petitioners shall appear before the investigating officer for interrogation as and when required; b) The petitioners shall not try to influence the prosecution witnesses or tamper with the evidence. Bail Appln.No.8909/2011 : 4 : c) The petitioners shall not commit any offence or indulge in any prejudicial activity while on bail. d) 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 skj