IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA THURSDAY, THE 6TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 15TH KARTHIKA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 6778 of 2008() ----------------------------- CRIME NO. 387/2008 OF PEECHI POLICE STATION PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS 2 TO 4 -------------------------------------------------- 1. BENNY, AGED 42 YEARS, S/O.THOMAS, RESIDING AT MATTATHIL HOUSE, AASARIKADU P.O. PEECHI VILLAGE, THRISSUR. 2. SALI, AGED 40 YEARS, W/O.BENNY, RESIDING AT MATTATHIL HOUSE, AASARIKADU P.O., PEECHI VILLAGE, THRISSUR. 3. THOMAS, AGED 75 YEARS, S/O.VARGHESE, RESIDING AT MATTATHIL HOUSE, AASARIKADU P.O., PEECHI VILLAGE, THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.A.T.ANILKUMAR SRI.P.DALBI EMMANUEL RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT -------------------------- THE STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, REP. BY THE S.I. OF POLICE, PEECHI IN CRIME NO.387/2008. BY P.P. SRI.M.S.BREEZ THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K. HEMA, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - B.A. No. 6778 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 6th day of November,2008 O R D E R Petition for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under sections 498A, 323, 324 and 506(ii) IPC. According to prosecution, petitioners (A1 to A4) along with 1st accused allegedly harassed de facto complainant who was married to 1st accused. The harassment was on demand of more dowry. The 1st accused was an alcoholic and he used to assault de facto complainant after getting drunk. On 6-8-2008, all the accused altogether physically assaulted her and in furtherance of common intention. They also criminally intimidated her. 3. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that actually de facto complainant had complaints only against 1st accused who is her husband. But petitioners, who are the close relatives of her husband, are unnecessarily dragged into a case like this. The 2nd accused is brother-in-law and 4th accused is father-in-law of de facto complainant. Accused 2 and 3 are husband and wife and they residing away from the house where de facto complainant was living with her husband. This fact is revealed from the complaint itself, it is submitted. Father-in-law also was not residing with the couple and he was residing with another son, it BA 6778/08 -2- is submitted. Father-in-law is aged 75 years and he is a sick person who cannot even move properly and the only allegation against him is that he helped 3rd accused to drag de facto complainant to a room for assaulting, it is submitted. 4. The main allegations against petitioners are with respect to an incident, which allegedly took place on 6-8-2008, in which, 2nd accused had put a cloth of her mouth and assaulted her. All of them allegedly assaulted de facto complainant on that day and de facto complainant had gone to a doctor and she got admitted in the hospital on 6-8-2008. But as per wound certificate, the only allegation made is that her husband assaulted her. She had made specific allegation that her husband assaulted her on that day. The allegations against petitioners are totally absent in the wound certificate. Petitioners are prepared to abide by any condition as imposed by this Court and they may be granted anticipatory bail, it is submitted. 5. On hearing both sides I am satisfied that petitioners can be granted anticipatory bail. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that petitioners may be directed to surrender before the Investigating Officer and subject to that, he has no objection in granting anticipatory bail to petitioners. BA 6778/08 -3- 6. Hence, the following order is passed:- (1) Petitioners shall surrender before the Investigating Officer within seven days from today and in the event of their arrest, they shall be released on bail, on their executing a bond for Rs. 25,000/- each with two solvent sureties each, for the like amount, to the satisfaction of the arresting officer, on the following conditions:- i) Petitioners shall make himself available for interrogation by the Investigating Officer as and when directed. ii) Petitioners shall not intimidate or influence any witness or tamper with evidence or commit any offence while on bail. iii) Petitioners shall co-operate with the investigation. This petition is allowed. K.HEMA, JUDGE. BA 6778/08 -4- mn.