IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT THURSDAY, THE 10TH JANUARY 2008 / 20TH POUSHA 1929 Bail Appl..No. 56 of 2008() --------------------------- CRIME NO.733/07 OF THALIPARAMBA POLICE STATION : PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NO.1 & 2 --------------------------------------------- 1. ROJI THOMAS, S/O. THOMAS, AGED 31 YEARS, NAYIPURAYIDATHIL HOUSE, 7TH MILE, THALIPARAMBA, KANNUR DISTRICT. 2. REJI THOMAS, S/O. THOMAS, AGED 33 YEARS, NAYIPURAYIDATHIL HOUSE, 7TH MILE, THALIPARAMBA, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.SUNIL NAIR PALAKKAT SRI.K.N.ABHILASH RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT/STATE ------------------------------ STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, THALIPARAMBA POLICE STATION, KANNUR, THROUGH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.S.U.NAZAR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J ------------------------------------ B.A.No.56 of 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 10th day of January, 2008 ORDER Application for anticipatory bail. Petitioners are the husband and brother in law of the defacto complainant. There is strain in the matrimony. The spouses are living separately. The crux of the allegations is that the husband and brother in law of the defacto complainant went to the house occupied by the defacto complainant and allegedly threatened her. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the allegations are totally unfounded. In fact, the house has been taken on lease in the name of the 1st petitioner. Because of the strain in the matrimony, reckless and exaggerated allegations are being raised against the petitioner, submits the learned counsel for the petitioners. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners prays, the learned Public Prosecutor does not oppose the said prayer and I am satisfied in the facts and circumstances of this case that the petitioners can be granted anticipatory bail. In the absence of opposition, it is not necessary for me to advert to facts in any greater detail. 4. In the result, the Bail Application is, allowed. The following directions are issued under Section 438 Cr.P.C. B.A.No.56 of 2008 2 i) The petitioners shall appear before the learned Magistrate at 11 a.m on 17.01.2008. They shall be enlarged on regular bail on their executing a bond for Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five thousand only) each with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate; ii) The petitioners shall make themselves available for interrogation before the Investigating Officer between 10 a.m and 4 p.m on 18.01.2008 and 19.01.2008 and thereafter between 10 a.m and 12 noon on all Mondays and Fridays for a period of one months. Subsequently the petitioners shall make themselves available for interrogation before the Investigating Officer as and when directed by the Investigating Officer in writing to do so; iii) If the petitioners do not appear before the learned Magistrate as directed in clause (i), directions issued above shall thereafter stand revoked and the police shall be at liberty to arrest the petitioners and deal with them in accordance with law as if those directions were not issued at all; iv) If the petitioners were arrested prior to their surrender on 17.01.08 as directed in clause (1) above, they shall be released from custody on their executing a bond for Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five thousand only) each without any sureties undertaking to appear before the learned Magistrate on 17.01.08. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) rtr/- B.A.No.56 of 2008 3