IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA WEDNESDAY, THE 19TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 28TH KARTHIKA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 6930 of 2008() ----------------------------- CRIME NO. 561/2008 OF VADAKKEKARA POLICE STATION PETITIONER/ACCUSED:- ------------------------------ C.K.RAJENDRAN, S/O.NEELA KRISHNAN, CHEKKATHUKADU VEEDU, UDAYAMPERUR, NOW AT MANAKKODAM MURI, CHANDAMANGALAM, PARUR. (NOW JOSEPH RAJU AFTER CHANGING HIS RELIGION) BY ADV. SRI.M.G.DEVIPRASADAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE NORTH PARUR, THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE VADAKKEKARA POLICE STATION, THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.M.S.BREEZ THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K. HEMA, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - B.A. No. 6930 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 19th day of November,2008 O R D E R Petition for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offence is under section 498A IPC. According to prosecution, petitioner married de facto complainant and while they were living together, petitioner insisted de facto complainant to transfer the property, which devolved upon de facto complainant, after the death of her parents, to his name. On this compulsion, de facto complainant was harassed physically and mentally. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that petitioner married de facto complainant in 1994 and there was no problem in the family until one Michale intruded into their relationship. De facto complainant developed some intimacy with said Michale and hence, she filed a complaint against petitioner before the police. Petitioner was called to police station and police asked him to get out of his house. Since the property was in the name of de facto complainant, he was forced to remain outside. Thereafter, it is understood that the house was rented out by his wife to strangers. 4. In such circumstances, a suit was also filed by petitioner as O.S. no.500/2008 before the Munsiff's Court, for obtaining an BA 6930/08 -2- injunction restraining his wife and Michale from obstructing him from entering into the house. De facto complainant entered appearance, but Michale did not accept the notice. This complaint was lodged in this background. If petitioner is arrested in connection with this case, he will suffer irreparable injury and loss, it is submitted. 5. On hearing both sides, I find that anticipatory bail can be issued. Hence the following order is passed:- (1) Petitioner shall surrender before the Investigating Officer, within seven days from today and make himself available for interrogation. (2) Thereafter, in the event of his arrest, if any, he shall be released on bail, on his executing a bond for Rs. 25,000/- with two solvent sureties each, for the like amount, to the satisfaction of the arresting officer, on the following conditions:- i) Petitioner shall make himself available for interrogation by the Investigating Officer as and when directed. ii) Petitioner shall not intimidate or BA 6930/08 -3- influence any witness or tamper with evidence or commit any offence while on bail. This petition is allowed. K.HEMA, JUDGE. mn.