IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA FRIDAY, THE 17TH OCTOBER 2008 / 25TH ASWINA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 4442 of 2008(A) ------------------------------------- CRIME NO.166/2008 OF KILIMANOOR POLICE STATION PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 & 2 : -------------------------------------- 1. MUHAMMED SALIM, S/O.ABDUL RAHMAN, CHARUVAILA VEEDU, MUTHAYIL WARD, MANKODE VILLAGE, CHITHARA, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 2. ABDUL GAFOOR, S/O.ABDUL RAHMAN, CHARUVILA VEEDU, MUTHAYIL WARD, MANKODE VILLAGE, CHITHARA, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.B.MOHANLAL RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT : ------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KILIMANOOR POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.M.S.BREEZ THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISISON ON 17/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. ------------------------------ B.A. No.4442 OF 2008 ------------------------------ Dated this the 17th 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 of I.P.C. According to prosecution, the first accused married the defacto complainant in the year 2004 and 40 sovereigns of gold were given to the defacto complainant and those were sold by the first accused. Rs.1,15,000/- was also given to the first accused by the defacto complainant's father for arranging a visa to go to gulf. He left for gulf in 2005. In the meantime, the first accused and the second accused were harassing the defacto complainant by demanding more dowry and more money. 3. Even after coming back from gulf 26.01.2008 the first accused made a demand for Rs.5 Lakhs from the defacto complainant and she was ousted from the marital house. The second accused is the brother of the first accused. It is also alleged that defacto complainant's parents were prepared to give an extent of 10 cents of property in the name of the defacto B.A.4442 of 2008 2 complainant but the first accused was not willing to accept the same but he demanded more money and harassed her. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the allegations made against him are not correct. The first accused filed a petition for restitution of conjugal rights and there is a child in the wedlock and that after he came back from gulf in January 2008 they lived together, but some difference of opinion developed, since she insisted that he should stay in her house. It is also submitted that the case was referred to the Lok Adalath for settling the marital dispute between the parties but the defacto complainant was continuously absent and hence the matter could not be settled. In such circumstances, anticipatory bail may be granted, it is submitted. 5. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that he has no objection in granting anticipatory to the second accused on conditions. But there are serious allegations against the first accused. On considering the nature of allegations made, anticipatory bail may not be granted to him. The Lok Adalath returned the file to this court, since the defacto complainant sent B.A.4442 of 2008 3 a letter stating her difficulty to appear before the Lok Adalath, since her father had an accident and he is unable to travel. It is also stated in the letter that no amount was paid by first accused towards maintenance and hence she is not able to come to the Lok Adalath. It also admitted that a petition for maintenance is pending before the court. On hearing both sides to protect the interest of parties, I find that anticipatory bail can be granted on conditions. Hence, the following order is passed : The petitioners shall surrender before the Investigating Officer within 15 days from today and co-operate with the investigation and in the event of their arrest, they shall be released on bail on their executing bond for Rs.25,000/- each with two solvent sureties each for like sum to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer on the following conditions : i. The first accused shall produce an F.D. Receipt for Rs.1 Lakh in the name of the B.A.4442 of 2008 4 defacto complainant and the child within 15 days from today. This condition is applicable only to the first accused. ii. The petitioners shall not influence or intimidate any witness or commit any offence while on bail. iii. The petitioners shall report before the Investigating Officer as and when directed and co-operate with the investigation. After dictating the order, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that he has objection in depositing the amount of Rs.1Lakh and that this objection may be recorded. It is recorded. But, it is made clear that if the first accused fails to deposit the amount as per the condition imposed, then the order will not be come into effect, as far as the first petitioner is concerned. Section 438 Cr.P.C. allows the court to make any condition as it deem fit and proper, in the circumstances. Though the facts are not persuasive to grant anticipatory bail, it is granted only since this court finds that the interest of the B.A.4442 of 2008 5 victim can be protected by imposing condition and allowing this petition. If the first petitioner who is working abroad and is affluent cannot comply with the condition, he does not deserve the benefit of this order. With these observation, the petition is allowed. K.HEMA, JUDGE pac