IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN FRIDAY, THE 11TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 20TH KARTHIKA 1933 Bail Appl..No. 8914 of 2011() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.732/2011 OF NOORNADU POLICE STATION, ALAPPUZHA PETITIONER : ACCUSED 1 & 2 ----------------------------------- 1. REJI,S/O.VISHWANATHAN, SJAI BHAVANANM,NORTH OF KALLIRICKUM JN, PULIMEL, NOORANDU, 2. SAROJINI, W/O.VISANATHAN, SAJI BHAVANAM, NORTH OF KALLIRICUMJUN, PULIMEL, NOORANADU, BY ADV. SRI.R.SUNIL KUMAR RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT ----------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. THROUGH S.I.OF POLICE, NOORANADU, POLICE STATION. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.R.RENJITH THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. --------------------------- B.A.No.8914 of 2011 --------------------------- Dated this the 11th day of November, 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 in Crime No.732 of 2011 of Noornadu Police Station, Alappuzha District. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioners are under Sections 498A and 323 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The first petitioner is the husband of the de facto complainant. The second petitioner is the mother of the first petitioner. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor. I have also perused the case diary. BA 8914/11 2 5. There were disputes between the first petitioner and the de facto complainant. It is alleged that the de facto complainant was harassed by her husband and her mother. She went to her house. Thereafter, there was a mediation. It is alleged that at the time when mediation talks were going on, on 18.10.2011, the de facto complainant and her mother were attacked by the petitioners and others. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the second petitioner was attacked by the brother of the de facto complainant in the present case as well as the de facto complainant and on account of the same, Crime No.735 of 2011 of Noornadu Police Station was registered for the offences under Sections 341, 323 and 427 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 7. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of the offence and other circumstances, I am of the view that anticipatory bail can be granted to the petitioners. BA 8914/11 3 There will be a direction that in the event of arrest of the petitioners, the officer in charge of the police station shall release them on bail on their executing bond for ` 10,000/- each with two solvent sureties for the like amount to the satisfaction of the officer concerned, subject to the following conditions: A) The first petitioner shall report before the investigating officer between 9 A.M. and 11 A.M. on alternate Mondays, till the final report is filed or until further orders; B) The petitioners shall appear before the investigating officer for interrogation as and when required ; C) The petitioners shall not try to influence the prosecution witnesses or tamper with the evidence ; D) The petitioners shall not commit any offence or indulge in any prejudicial activity while on bail; E) 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 csl