IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN TUESDAY, THE 6TH SEPTEMBER 2011 / 15TH BHADRA 1933 Bail Appl..No. 6642 of 2011 CRIME NO.808 OF 2011 OF MATHILAKAM POLICE STATION, THRISSUR. PETITIONERS/ACCUSED --------------------------------------- 1. SUDHEESH, AGED 39 YEARS, S/O.RAMAN, VALIYAPARAMBIL HOUSE, KOTHAPARAMBU P.O., S.N.PURAM VILLAGE, KODUNGALLUR TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 2. MEENAKSHY, AGED 69 YEARS, WIFE OF RAMAN, VALIYAPARAMBIL HOUSE, KOTHAPARAMBU P.O., S.N.PURAM VILLAGE, KODUNGALLUR TALUK,THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.T.H.ABDUL AZEEZ SRI.P.M.ABDUL JALEEL (KODUNGALLUR) RESPONDENT: COMPLAINANT -------------------------- STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MATHILAKAM POLICE STATION THROUGH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.V.MANU THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/09/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------ Bail Appl. NO. 6642 OF 2011 ------------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 6th day of September, 2011 O R D E R This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioners are accused Nos.1 and 2 respectively in Crime No.808 of 2011 of Mathilakam Police Station, Thrissur District. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioners are under Sections 498A, 323 and 324 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. he first accused is the husband of the de facto complainant and the second accused is the mother of the first accused. 4. When the Bail Application came up for admission on 26th August, 2011, the following order was passed: “5. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case and the nature of the offence, BAIL APPL. NO. 6642 OF 2011 :: 2 :: I am of the view that before considering the question of granting anticipatory bail, the first petitioner should be directed to appear before the investigating officer. Accordingly, there will be a direction to the first accused/first petitioner to appear before the investigating officer on 1st September, 2011. 6. Post on 5.9.2011. It is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that the petitioners will not be arrested in connection with Crime No.808 of 2011 of Mathilakam Police Station till 7.9.2011. The petitioners shall co-operate with the investigating officer in the matter of investigation and for recovery of incriminating materials, if any. The petitioners shall produce a copy of this order before the investigating officer.” 5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned Public Prosecutor that the direction in the order dated 26th August, 2011 has been complied with by the petitioners. 6. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of the offence and also taking note of the fact that the direction in the order dated 26th August, 2011 has been complied BAIL APPL. NO. 6642 OF 2011 :: 3 :: with by the petitioners, I am of the view that anticipatory bail can be granted to the petitioners. There will be a direction that in the event of the arrest of the petitioners, the officer in charge of the police station shall release them on bail on their executing bond for `10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) each with two solvent sureties for the like amount to the satisfaction of the officer concerned, subject to the following conditions: a) The petitioners shall appear before the investigating officer for interrogation as and when required; b) The petitioners shall not try to influence the prosecution witnesses or tamper with the evidence; c) The petitioners shall not commit any offence or indulge in any prejudicial activity while on bail; d) In case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, the bail shall be liable to be cancelled. The Bail Application is allowed to the extent indicated above. (K.T.SANKARAN) Judge ahz/