IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA FRIDAY, THE 21ST MAY 2010 / 31ST VAISAKHA 1932 Bail Appl..No. 1315 of 2010() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.110/2010 OF KEEZHVAIPUR POLICE STAITON, PATHANAMTHITTA. (S): PETITIONERS ------------------------------- 1. SHIJU MATHEW(SHIBU), AGED 28 YEARS, S/O.K.V.MATHEW, ELAVUMKAL HOUSE, CHENGAROOR PO, KALLOOPPARA VILLAGE, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. 2. MARIYAMMA MATHEW, AGED 60 YEARS, W/O.K.V.MATHEW, ELAVUMKAL HOUSE, CHENGAROOR PO, KALLOOPPARA VILLAGE, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. 3. SHAJI MATHEW, AGED 32 YEARS, S/O.K.V.MATHEW, ELAVUMKAL HOUSE, CHENGAROOR PO, KALLOOPPARA VILLAGE, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. 4. SHEEJA MATHEW, AGED 26 YEARS, D/O.K.V.MATHEW, ELAVUMKAL HOUSE, CHENGAROOR PO, KALLOOPPARA VILLAGE, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. 5. MERLIN SHAJI, AGED 24 YEARS, W/O.SHAJI MATHEW,ELAVUMKAL HOUSE, CHENGAROOR PO, KALLOOPPARA VILLAGE, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.JOSEPH GEORGE RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT -------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE S.I. OF POLICE, KEEZHVAIPUR POLICE STATION, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.TEK CHAND. THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. ---------------------------------------------- Bail Application No.1315 of 2010 ---------------------------------------------- Dated 21st May, 2010. O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offence is under Section 498A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. According to prosecution, defacto complainant and first accused were married on 24.11.2008 and during the subsistence of marriage, defacto complainant was ill-treated by all the petitioners and they have committed offence under Section 498A read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that main allegations are against first accused, but he has not committed any offence. At the time when he is alleged to have committed the offence, he was working abroad. After the marriage, he left the house on 29.12.2008. 4. This petition is opposed, in so far as it relates to first accused. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that as per the allegations in the complaint, first accused has beaten defacto complainant on 9.12.2008 and 16.12.2008 and according to first BA NO.1315/10 2 accused, he left India only on 29.12.2008. As far as the other petitioners are concerned, he has no objection in granting anticipatory bail, it is submitted. 5. On hearing both sides, I am satisfied that anticipatory bail can be granted to petitioners 2 to 5, but I am reluctant to grant anticipatory bail to first petitioner(first accused) considering the nature of allegations made against him. Hence, the following order is passed : (1) The prayer for anticipatory bail to the first accused is rejected. (2) Petitioners 2 to 5 shall surrender before the court concerned within seven days from today and they shall be released on bail on their executing bond for Rs.25,000/- (Rupees 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) Petitioners 2 to 5 shall not influence or intimidate any witness or tamper with evidence. (ii) They shall report before the Investigating Officer as and when directed and shall co- operate with the investigation. Petition is allowed. K.HEMA, JUDGE. tgs