IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA TUESDAY, THE 2ND SEPTEMBER 2008 / 11TH BHADRA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 5000 of 2008() ----------------------------- (CRIME NO. 365/2008 OF EDACHERY POLICE STATION) PETITIONER/ACCUSED ----------------------------------- 1. KUNJIRAMAN, AGED 65 YEARS, S/O.KANARAN, VANATHIKANDI H0USE, KACHERY.P.O, EDACHERY, KOZHIKODE. 2. JANAKI, W/O.KUNJIRAMAN, AGED 58 YEARS, VANATHIKANDI HOUSE, KACHERY.P.O, EDACHERY, KOZHIKODE. 3. SUDHISH, S/O.KUNJIRAMAN, AGED 22 YEARS, VANATHIKANDI HOUSE, KACHERY.P.O, EDACHERY, KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SMT.T.KAMALA MENON RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT & STATE -------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. M.S. BREEZ. THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K. HEMA, J. ------------------------------------------------ Bail Appl.No.5000 of 2008 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 2nd day of September, 2008. ORDER Petition for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offence is under Section 498(A) and 34 of Indian Penal Code. According to prosecution, a crime was registered, on the basis of a complaint lodged by the de facto complainant, who is the daughter-in-law of petitioners 1 and 2 and sister-in-law of petitioner no.3. They allegedly assaulted the de facto complainant asking her to bring money and gold etc. When she came to the house in search of her husband. The incident happened on 17.7.2008. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the de facto complainant was married to the son of petitioners 1 and 2 without their knowledge. The de facto complainant was a widow having two children in the earlier wedlock and the marriage was a love marriage which was not to the liking of the petitioners. They were living together in Bangalore and petitioners were not interfering in any of their affairs. But the de [B.A.5000/08] 2 facto complainant came to the house of the petitioners on one day, without the company of her husband, and the petitioners told her to come only with her husband. This is all what happened. But, later she gave a complaint making false allegations at a police station which is far away from the house of the petitioners. She did not lodge the compliant in the police station within which petitioners' house is situated. Though there is allegation of assault, there is absolutely no evidence to support the same, except oral assertions, it is submitted. 3. After hearing both sides, the case was referred to the Lok Adalat at High Court. Though the de facto complainant was specifically directed by this Court to appear before the Lok Adalat, she failed to appear. Petitioner and counsel were present before the Adalat. The matter could not be settled, since de facto complainant was not present at the Lok Adalat. Learned Public Prosecutor pointed out that a complaint is not filed against the husband of the de facto complainant. He also submitted that the petition can be allowed on conditions. Hence, anticipatory bail is granted to the petitioners and the following order is passed: 1) Petitioners shall surrender before the Magistrate court [B.A.5000/08] 3 concerned within 7 days from today and, if bail application is filed, 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 learned Magistrate on the following conditions: i) Petitioners shall make themselves available for interrogation as and when directed by the investigating officer. ii) They shall co-operate with the investigation. Petition is allowed. K. HEMA, JUDGE. Krs.