IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA TUESDAY, THE 26TH AUGUST 2008 / 4TH BHADRA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 4859 of 2008() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.157/2008 OF NILESHWAR POLICE STATION .................... PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 TO 3 ------------------------------------ 1. A.P.T.HAMEED, S/O.A.P.T.SULAIMAN, RESIDING AT MOTTAMMAL, THRIKARIPUR.P.O. 2. SAINABA, AGED 65 YEARS, W/O.A.P.T.SULAIMAN, RESIDING AT MOTTAMMAL, THRIKARIPUR.P.O. 3. SUBAIDA, AGED 30 YEARS, D/O.A.T.P.SULAIMAN, RESIDING AT MOTTAMMAL, THRIKARIPUR.P.O. BY ADV. SMT.T.SUDHAMANI RESPONDENT: COMPLAINANT ------------------------ THE STATE OF KERALA REP.BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.K.S.SIVAKUMAR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. ------------------------------------------------------- Bail Application No.4859 of 2008 ------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 26th day of August, 2008 O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offence is under Section 498(A) of IPC. Petitioners are the husband, mother-in-law and sister-in-law of the defacto complainant. According to defacto complainant, marriage between the first petitioner and the defacto complainant took place in the year 1985. They have four children in the wedlock. First petitioner used to harass the defacto complainant by demanding money, ever since the marriage. While he was working in Gulf, he had illicit relationship with another lady and he married her and he is having two children in the said wedlock. First petitioner was physically and mentally harassed the defacto complainant, for which, the second and third petitioners also were helping. Because of the torture, she left the house on 15.2.2003 and she is now at the mercy of her relatives. 3. This case was referred to Lok Adalath at High Court. BA No.4859/08 2 But, it is reported that there is no possibility of settlement. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the defacto complainant is insisting for divorce. 4. Learned public prosecutor pointed out that the first petitioner has another wife and children and there are clear allegations of harassment from his part. With respect to second and third petitioners, there are allegations that they aided the first petitioner in inflicting cruelty on the defacto complainant. However, he also submitted that the second and third petitioners may be directed to surrender before the Investigating Officer and subject to that bail may be granted to them. 5. On hearing both sides and on going through the complaint and on consideration of the facts of this case, I find that anticipatory bail can be granted to the second and the third petitioners. But, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the first petitioner. Hence, the following order is passed: (i) The prayer for anticipatory bail by the first petitioner is rejected. (ii) Second and the third petitioners are directed to appear before the Investigating Officer within BA No.4859/08 3 seven days from today and make themselves available for interrogation. (iii) In the event of arrest of the petitioners 2 and 3, 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 arresting officer on condition that they will not commit any offence while on bail and they shall co-operate with the investigation and report before the Investigating Officer as and when directed. The petition is partly allowed. K.HEMA, JUDGE csl