IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT MONDAY, THE 28TH JANUARY 2008 / 8TH MAGHA 1929 Bail Appl..No. 328 of 2008() ---------------------------- CRIME NO.399/2007 OF IDUKKI POLICE STATION : PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.2 ---------------------------------------- ANNAMMA, AGED 55, W/O THOMAS, KEERAM CHIRAYIL HOUSE, UPPUTHODU KARA, UPPUTHODU VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.B.RAMAN PILLAI SRI.R.ANIL SRI.ANIL K.MOHAMMED SRI.DELVIN JACOB MATHEWS SRI.SUJESH MENON.V.B SRI.JOSEPH P.ALEX RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT ------------------------ STATE, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.S.U.NAZER THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J. ---------------------- B.A.No.328 of 2008 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 28th day of January 2008 O R D E R Application for anticipatory bail. The petitioner faces allegations in a crime registered for offences punishable inter alia under Sections 307 and 326. The petitioner is the second accused. Her husband is the first accused. There is a property dispute between the accused persons and their neighbours. The neighbour and his wife are also involved in the incident. The first accused/husband of the petitioner had allegedly inflicted injuries on the neighbour and his wife. The crux of the allegations is that when the de facto complainant tried to take photographs of the property, the petitioner's husband raised objections against that and attacked the de facto complainant. Wife of the de facto complainant also came to the scene of the occurrence. The petitioner, who was present along with her husband, allegedly extorted her husband to do away with both victims. He inflicted injuries on them. This allegedly is the offence committed by the petitioner. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent. Even as per the allegations in the F.I.R, the petitioner is not guilty of any specific overt acts. Ecept the allegations of extortion, there is no specific allegation against the B.A.No.328/08 2 petitioner. The petitioner is a woman aged about 55 years and mother of four children. Merely because of the differences of opinion between the neighbours, she has also been dragged into the controversy. There was an occasion earlier for the petitioner to complain about the alleged indecent assault by the victim in this case. She is being falsely implicated in these circumstances. At any rate, considering the age of the petitioner, her alleged role and the fact that she is not even allegedly guilty of any specific overt act, anticipatory bail may be granted to the petitioner, it is prayed. 3. The learned Public Prosecutor opposes the application. But notwithstanding the opposition, I am satisfied in the facts and circumstances of this case, that anticipatory bail can be granted to the petitioner subject to appropriate conditions which shall ensure that the interests of a fair, efficient and expeditious investigation are not hampered in any manner. 4. In the result, this petition is allowed. Following directions are issued under Section 438 Cr.P.C in favour of the petitioner. i) Petitioner shall surrender before the learned Magistrate having jurisdiction at 11 a.m on 04/02/2008. She shall be released on regular bail on condition that she executes a bond for Rs.50,000/-(Rupees fifty thousand only) with two solvent B.A.No.328/08 3 sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate. ii) The petitioner shall make herself available for interrogation before the investigating officer between 10 a.m and 3 p.m on 05/02/2008 and 06/02/2008. During this period, the investigating officer shall be at liberty to interrogate the petitioner in custody and take all necessary steps for the proper conduct of the investigation in this crime. Thereafter the petitioner shall so appear on all Mondays and Fridays between 10 a.m and 12 noon for a period of two months and subsequently as and when directed by the investigating officer in writing to do so. (iii) If the petitioner does not appear before the learned Magistrate as directed in clause (i), directions issued above shall thereafter stand revoked and the police shall be at liberty to arrest the petitioner and deal with her in accordance with law, as if these directions were not issued at all. (iv) If she were arrested prior to 04/02/2008, she shall be released from custody on her executing a bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) without any sureties, undertaking to appear before the learned Magistrate on 04/02/2008. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) jsr B.A.No.328/08 4 B.A.No.328/08 5 R.BASANT, J. CRL.M.CNo. ORDER 21ST DAY OF MAY2007