IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA WEDNESDAY, THE 11TH JUNE 2008 / 21ST JYAISHTA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 3742 of 2008() ----------------------------- (CRIME NO. 332/2008 OF ANCHAL POLICE STATION) PETITIONERS/ACCUSED ------------------------------------ 1. SHRI.SANTHOSHKUMAR, AGED 34 YEARS, S/O.LATE SUKUMARA PILLAI, LATHIKAVILASOM, THUDAYANNUR P.O., KADAKKAL, KOTTARAKKARA TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 2. SMT.SANTHAKUMARI AMMA, AGED 57 YEARS, W/O.LATE SUKUMARA PILLAI, LATHIKAVILASOM, THUDAYANNUR P.O., KADAKKAL, KOTTARAKKARA TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 3. SMT.JAYASREE, AGED 39 YEARS, W/O.VIJAYAN PILLAI, UTHRADOM KAUKON P.O., ANCHAL, PATHANAPURAM TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.S.ABHILASH SRI.S.HARIKRISHNAN RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT ------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ANCHAL POLICE STATION, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.M.S. BREEZ THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K. HEMA, J. ------------------------------------------ Bail Appl.No.3742 of 2008 ------------------------------------------ Dated this the 11th day of June, 2008. ORDER Petition for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Sections 498A and 34 of IPC. The first petitioner is a police man and he is the husband of the de facto complainant. Second and third petitioners are his mother and sister. According to prosecution, the de facto complainant was physically and mentally harassed by the petitioners, after marriage and offences under Section 498A and 34 IPC are attracted. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that de facto complainant had lodged a complaint earlier against the petitioner alleging offence under Section 376 IPC, a copy of the F.I.R. is Annexure-II. Later she gave a statement before the Court stating that no such rape took place etc. A petition was filed by the first petitioner under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings against petitioner and investigation in the said case is stayed by this Court as per order dated 22.4.2008 in Crl.M.C.No.1712 of2008. 4. Meanwhile, first petitioner married the de facto complainant on 3.2.2008. But, the de facto complainant lived with him only for a [B.A.No.3742/08] 2 period of two months. On 23.2.2008, she left the husband and according to him, it was because he had some physical ailments. He had degeneration at the upper cervical disc etc. as revealed from the medical report Annexure-A5. It is also submitted that because of the said physical problem the first petitioner was sent on deputation to the Oil Palm India Ltd. as a Guard. But, de facto complainant deliberately made false allegations against the petitioners and the petitioners apprehended arrest in a non-bailable offence. 5. The petitioners therefore filed B.A.No. 2770 of 2008 and, as per order dated 2.5.2008, this Court passed an order as follows: “The learned Prosecutor reports that no crime is registered against the petitioners on the complaint of the wife of the wife of the first petitioner and the petitioners are not required to be arrested at the Kadakkal Police Station in connection with any crime. If the petitioners were to be arrested on any such allegations raised by the wife of the first petitioner of having committed any offence prior to this date, prior note shall be given to the petitioners and prior permission of this Court shall be taken, submits the learned Prosecutor. 2. In the light of the submissions/undertaking, which I accept, the apprehension of the petitioners is found to be without any basis.” 6. In the light of the above order, a complaint was lodged by de facto complainant before another police station making same type of allegations and this is evidently to circumvent this Court's order. A crime is also registered against the petitioners [B.A.No.3742/08] 3 under Section 498A and 34 of IPC. The petitioners again apprehend arrest. 7. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that he has no objection in granting anticipatory bail on conditions. On hearing both sides, the following order is passed: 1. The 2nd respondent shall release the petitioners ins the event of arrest on their executing bond for Rs.25,000/- each with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the arresting officer on the following terms and conditions: (i) Petitioners shall make themselves available for interrogation as and when directed by the investigating officer. (ii) Petitioner shall not influence or threaten any witnesses and in case of breach of this condition, bail is liable to be cancelled. Petition is allowed. K. HEMA, JUDGE. Krs.