IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA TUESDAY, THE 18TH MAY 2010 / 28TH VAISAKHA 1932 Bail Appl..No. 1358 of 2010() --------------------------------- CRIME NO. 133/2010 OF CHAVARA-THEKKUMBHAGOM \ POLICE STATION ----------------- PETITIONER/ACCUSED : ------------------------------ SUBHADRA AMMA, AGED 59 YEARS, W/O.LATE.K.CHANDRASEKHARA PILLAI,SILA BHAVANAM, KOIVILA.P.O MURI, KOIVILA P.O.,THEVALAKKARA VILLAGE, KARUNAGAPPALLY TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.V.DILEEP RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT: ----------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY SRI. M.S.BREEZ PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. ------------------ B.A. No. 1358 of 2010 ----------------------------- Dated this the 18th day of May, 2010 O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offence is under Section 498(A) read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. According to prosecution, petitioner along with three others harassed the de facto complainant physically and mentally and committed above offence. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is the fourth accused and she is mother in law of the de facto complainant. She was not implicated in the F.I. Statement. Accused Nos. 1 to 3, who are arrayed as accused at the time of registration of the crime were granted anticipatory bail by this court as per order dated 24.03.2010 in Bail Application No. 1234/2010, it is submitted. 4. The learned Public Prosecutor conceded that there is no allegation in the F.I. Statement against the petitioner, mother in law. She was implicated at the subsequent stage during investigation. However, there are specific allegations against accused Nos. 1 to 3 in the F.I. Statement itself. B.A. No. 1358 of 2010 2 5. On hearing both sides and on considering the facts and circumstances stated above, I find that accused Nos. 1 to 3 against whom specific allegations were made in F.I. Statement itself were granted anticipatory bail. There is no reason why the same relief is refused to petitioner, who is subsequently arrayed as accused, on subsequent statements. 6. Hence the following order is passed. 1. Petitioner shall be released on bail in the event of her arrest on her executing a bond for Rs. 25,000/- with two solvent sureties for the like sum to the satisfaction of the arresting officer on the following conditions: i. Petitioner shall appear before the investigating officer and co-operate with the investigation as and when directed. ii. Petitioner shall not influence or intimidate with the witnesses or tamper with the evidence. 2. Petitioner is at liberty to surrender before the Magistrate Court concerned, if so advised and seek regular bail. This petition is allowed. K. HEMA, JUDGE ln