IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA THURSDAY, THE 27TH MAY 2010 / 6TH JYAISHTA 1932 Bail Appl..No. 3143 of 2010() ----------------------------- (CRIME NO. 552/2009 OF KEEZHVAIPUR POLICE STATION) OP.302/2009 of FAMILY COURT, THIRUVALLA .................... PETITIONERS: -------------------------------- 1. REJI CHACKO, AGED 38 YEARS, S/O.CHACKO, THEVALAPPURATHU HOUSE, EVOOR NORTH P.O., CHEPPADU, KARTHIGAPPALLY TALUK. 2. CHACKO, AGED 79 YEARS, THEVALAPPURATHU HOUSE, EVOOR NORTH P.O., CHEPPADU, KARTHIGAPPALLY TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.K.SASIKUMAR SRI.S.ARAVIND RESPONDENT(S): --------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. V. TEK CHAND. THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K. HEMA, J. --------------------------------------------------- B.A. No. 3143 of 2010 --------------------------------------------------- Dated this 27th day of May, 2010. ORDER Petition for anticipatory bail. 2. According to prosecution, petitioners (A1 and A2) in furtherance of common intention allegedly committed theft and also cheating. De facto complainant is first accused's wife. Second accused is her father-in-law. According to de facto complainant, first accused took away the scooter, which belongs to de facto complainant. The alleged offences are under Section 420 and 379 read with Section 34 of IPC. 3. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that the marital relationship between de facto complainant and first accused strained and de facto complainant filed petition for return of gold ornaments and other articles including scooter. She claimed the value of scooter also. While petitioner was working abroad, he used to send money to de facto complainant and scooter was purchased in the de facto complainant's name and both of them were using the same. In Annexure-A1 petition filed by her, she only [B.A.No.3143/2010] 2 stated that scooter was taken away by first accused. The alleged incident happened on 16.12.2008 and complaint was filed only on 5.11.2009, after about 11 months of the incident alleged incident. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that petitioner may be directed to appear before the Investigating Officer for interrogation and recovery and subject to that he has no objection in grant anticipatory bail. 5. On hearing both sides, I am satisfied that anticipatory bail may be granted on conditions. Hence, the following order is passed: (1) Petitioner shall surrender before the Investigating Officer within 7 days from today and co-operate with the investigation. (2) Petitioner shall, in the event of his arrest, be released on bail on his executing a bond for Rs.50,000/- with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of arresting officer on the following conditions: (i) He shall surrender his passport before the Magistrate Court within 7 days from today. [B.A.No.3143/2010] 3 (ii) Petitioner shall report before the investigating officer as and when directed and co-operate with the investigation. (iii) Petitioner shall not intimidate or influence any witness or tamper with evidence. Petition is allowed. Sd/- K. HEMA, JUDGE. Krs.