IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA MONDAY, THE 7TH JUNE 2010 / 17TH JYAISTHA 1932 Bail Appl..No. 3308 of 2010() ----------------------------- (CRIME NO. 243/2010 OF CHATHANNUR POLICE STATION) PETITIONERS/ACCUSED: ---------------------------------------- 1. SANUJ SATHAR, S/O.ABDUL SATHAR, POIKAVILA PUTHEN VEEDU, KULAPPADAM, KOLLAM. 2. ABDUL SATHAR, AGED 65 YEARS, POIKAVILA PUTHEN VEEDU, KULAPPADAM, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.S.RAJEEV SRI.V.K.PEERMOHAMED KHAN SRI.K.K.DHEERENDRAKRISHNAN RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT: --------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM (CRIME NO.243/2010 OF CHATHANNUR POLICE STATION, KOLLAM DISTRICT.) PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. M.S BREEZ THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J -------------------- Bail Application No.3308 of 2010 ---------------------------------------------- Dated this the 7th day of June 2010 ORDER This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Sections 498(A), 511 of 376, r/w Section 34 IPC. According to prosecution, a private complaint was filed by the de facto complainant before the Magistrate Court alleging that de facto complainant and the first accused were married and after marriage she was harassed by him. It is also alleged that second accused who is the father of first accused attempted to commit rape on her. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there was difference of opinion between first and second accused and the people in their community intervened and found that marital relationship cannot be continued. Hence it was decided that first accused shall pronounce talaq and accordingly, he divorced de facto complainant as evidenced by Annexure A1. There was also an agreement between the parties in the presence of the mediators that first accused shall pay Rs.3,00,000/- at the time of divorce and she shall not claim any further amount. The amount was also paid and received as evidenced by Annexure A3. Bail Application No.3308 of 2010 2 It is also submitted that de facto complainant had agreed that no criminal or civil case will be instituted by the de facto complainant against petitioner in respect of the matrimonial dispute and the agreement is Annexure A4. After execution of the agreement, criminal complaint is filed on 05/03/2010, after two months of agreement, it is submitted. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that though crime was registered under Section 511 r/w 376 IPC, on investigation, it is revealed that such offence is not involved and the allegation is not correct and the said section is deleted. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that a reading of the complaint itself will reveal that offence under Section 511 r/w 376 IPC is not made out (vide para 6 of Annexure A5 complaint). 4. On hearing both sides and going through documents produced, I am satisfied that anticipatory bail can be granted to the petitioner failing which serious irreparable injury is likely to occur to petitioners and hence, the following order is passed: (1) Petitioner shall surrender before the Magistrate Court concerned within seven days from today. Bail Application No.3308 of 2010 3 (2) On such surrender, petitioner shall be released on bail on his executing self bond for Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) to the satisfaction of learned Magistrate on the following conditions: (i) Petitioners shall report before the Investigating Officer as and when directed and co-operate with investigation. (ii) Petitioner shall not influence or intimidate any witnesses or tamper with the evidence. Petition is allowed. K.HEMA, JUDGE vdv