IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA THURSDAY, THE 16TH OCTOBER 2008 / 24TH ASWINA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 6376 of 2008() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.324/2008 OF CHADAYAMANGALAM POLICE STATION PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1-3 ------------------------------------------- 1. NAZEERKHAN S/O. BADARUDEEN CHARUVILA PUTHEN VEEDU, PARUTHIYIL, KURIODE, CHADAYAMANGALAM, KOTTARAKARA. 2. BADARUDEEN, CHARUVILA PUTHEN VEEDU, PARUTHIYIL, KURIODE, CHADAYAMANGALAM, KOTTARAKARA. 3. ALIMABEEVI W/O. BADARUDEEN CHARUVILA PUTHEN VEEDU, PARUTHIYIL, KURIODE, CHADAYAMANGALAM, KOTTARAKARA. BY ADV. SRI.ALEXANDER GEORGE RESPONDENT(S): STATE -------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CHADAYAMANGALAM POLICE STATION, KOLLAM DISTRICT. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.M.S.BREEZ THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. ------------------------------------------------- B.A.No.6376 of 2008 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 16th day of October, 2008 O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Sections 498(A) and 34 IPC. According to prosecution, the defacto complainant was married by the first accused. The second and third accused are his parents. They ill treated the defacto complainant demanding more dowry and the marriage was conducted by suppressing the fact that the first accused is sterile. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the marriage was conducted in the year 2001 and up to 2006, the parties were living together. But, they had no issues and hence, a suggestion was made that she should go to a doctor. But, for this, she was not willing and she started living separately on account of this difference of opinion. The other allegations are not correct. Though they were living separately for two years from 2006 onwards, the complaint is filed only in 2008, that too, after filing a petition for maintenance. It is submitted that as per the interim order issued by the Family court, the petitioner is BA No.6376/08 2 paying Rs.300/- as maintenance. 4. Learned public prosecutor submitted that the petitioners may be directed to surrender before the Investigating Officer and co-operate with the investigation. Subject to this, he has no objection in granting anticipatory bail, it is submitted. 5. On hearing both sides, I am satisfied that anticipatory bail is granted on conditions. Hence, the following order is passed: (1) Petitioners shall surrender before the Investigating Officer within seven days from today and co-operate with the investigation and make themselves available for interrogation. (2) If the petitioners are arrested, they shall be released on bail 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 conditions: (i) They shall report before the Investigating Officer as and when directed. (ii) They shall co-operate with the investigation. BA No.6376/08 3 (iii) They shall not influence or intimidate any witness or commit any offence while on bail. The petition is allowed. K.HEMA, JUDGE csl