IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA THURSDAY, THE 29TH MAY 2008 / 8TH JYAISHTA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 3471 of 2008() ----------------------------- (CRIME 585/2008 OF THODUPUZHA POLICE STATION) PETITIONERS : ACCUSED NOS.1 AND 2 ------------------------------------ 1. SURENDRAN, S/O.NARAYANAPANICKER SHINI NIVAS, VEMBILLY IRACKAM BHAGOM, VENGALLOOR KUMARAMANGALAM VILLAGE, THODUPUZHA IDUKKI DISTRICT 2. RAMANI, W/O.SURENDRAN SHINI NIVAS, VEMBILLY IRACKAM BHAGOM, VENGALLOOR KUMARAMANGALAM VILLAGE, THODUPUZHA IDUKKI DISTRICT BY ADV. SRI.RENJITH B.MARAR SRI.L.RAJESH NARAYAN RESPONDENT: ------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE THODUPUZHA POLICE STATION, THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.K.S.SIVAKUMAR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/05/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K. HEMA, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - B.A.No. 3471 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 29th day of May, 2008 O R D E R This application is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under sections 354 and 420 IPC. According to the prosecution, the 1st petitioner has obtained on severaloccasions a total amount of Rs.1,00,000/- and 23 sovereigns of gold ornaments from the defacto complainant. When she demanded to return the same on 24-4-2008 and she went to the shop of the 1st petitioner, she was molested by kissing and she filed a complaint on 9-5-2008 alleging offence under section 354 IPC. Later other allegations were also made and offence under section 420 IPC was also included. The 2nd petitioner who is the wife of the 1st petitioner was also arrayed as the accused. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he is not pressing the request for anticipatory bail by 1st petitioner. But, the 2nd petitioner was brought to the array of accused at a belated stage on a report filed by the police stating that an offence under section 420 IPC is also involved and investigation was proceeded in the said section also, the details of which are not known to the petitioner. On the very next day report BA 3471/08 -2- is filed implicating the 2nd petitioner also who is the wife of the 1st petitioner. She is absolutely innocent all the allegations. 5. On hearing both sides, I find that the 2nd petitioner can be granted anticipatory bail taking into account the belated implication and also the fact that there are only vague allegations against her (Second petitioner is the wife of the 1st petitioner). In the result, the following orders are passed:- 1. The prayer for anticipatory bail by the 1st petitioner is rejected. 2. The 2nd petitioner shall report before the Investigating Officer on 6-6-2008 between 10 a.m. and 1 p.m. and make herself available for interrogation and thereafter she shall be produced before the court in accordance with law. 3.On production of the 2nd petitioner the court shall release her on bail on her executing a bond for Rs.20,000/- with solvent sureties each for the like amount to the satisfaction of the court on condition that she will co-operate with the investigation and report before the Investigating Officer as and when directed. The application is partly allowed. BA 3471/08 -3- K. HEMA, JUDGE. mn.