IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR TUESDAY, THE 5TH MAY 2009 / 15TH VAISAKHA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 2229 of 2009 ------------------------------------ CRIME NO.192 OF 2009 OF MEDICAL COLLEGE POLICE STATION,KOZHIKODE .................... PETITIONER/1ST ACCUSED ---------------------------------------- RISHANTH.M., AGED 26 YEARS, S/O.SASIDHARAN, MATTANNOONHIYIL HOUSE, VALAYANAD AMSOM, KOMMERI DESOM, KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SRI.R.SUDHISH SMT.M.MANJU RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT: ------------------------------------------- C.I. OF POLICE, MEDICAL COLLEGE POLICE STATION, KOZHIKODE THROUGH THE STATE, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.M.S.BREEZ THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05/05/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: C.T.RAVIKUMAR, J. ------------------------------------------- B.A.No.2229 of 2009 ------------------------------------------ Dated, this the 5th day of May, 2009 ORDER This is an application for anticipatory bail filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner is the first accused in Crime No.192 of 2009 of Medical College Police Station, Kozhikode alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 323, 498-A, 427 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The marriage between the petitioner and the de facto complainant was solemnized on 19.8.2007 and according to the petitioner, from 10.2.2008 onwards they have been living separately. Along with the petitioner herein, his parents and brothers were also implicated as accused in the aforesaid crime. They approached the Sessions Court, Kozhikode by filing Crl.M.C.No.462 of 2009 for anticipatory bail. After having elaborate consideration, the Sessions Court granted anticipatory bail in respect of the parents and brothers of the petitioner herein, considering the fact that the de facto complainant had not attributed any overtact to prove their involvement in the B.A.No.2229 of 2009 2 case. In respect of the petitioner, his application for anticipatory bail was rejected. 3. As stated earlier, the marriage between the petitioner and the de facto complainant was solemnized on 19.8.2007 and their marital relationship was short-lived. The strained relationship compelled them to live separately and now they have been living separately. Considering the nature of the allegations levelled against the petitioner as also the progress of the investigation in this case, I think the petitioner can be granted anticipatory bail. 4. Accordingly this application is allowed subject to the following conditions: i) In the event of his arrest, the petitioner shall be released on bail on executing a bond for Rs.50000/- with two solvent sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the officer conducting the arrest. ii) The petitioner shall report before the investigation officer once in a week, viz. on all Saturdays between 10 a.m. and 11 a.m. till the final report is laid. iii) Petitioner shall not tamper with or attempt to tamper with evidence or intimidate or influence or attempt to B.A.No.2229 of 2009 3 intimidate or influence the witnesses. iv) This order will be in force for a period of two months and thereafter the petitioner may move appropriate Court having jurisdiction for regular bail. C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE vns