IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN WEDNESDAY, THE 20TH JANUARY 2010 / 30TH POUSHA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 4030 of 2009() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.542/2009 OF CHENGANNUR POLICE STATION PETITIONERS/ACCUSED --------------------------------------- 1. AJITHA,AGED 47 YEARS,W/O.SASIDHRAN KURUP SREEVALSAM VEEDU, KEEZHCHERIMEL MURI, CHENGANNUR VILLAGE, CHENGANNUR TALUK. 2. MINI S.NAIR,SREEVALSAM VEEDU, KEEZHCHERIMEL MURI, CHENGANNUR VILLAGE. CHENGANNUR TALUK. 3. UTHRABHAI,AGED 70 YEARS, SREEVALSAM VEEDU, KEEZHCHERIMEL MURI, CHENGANNUR VILLAGE, CHENGANNUR TALUK. 4. NEETHU S.,AGED 47 YEARS, D/O.MINI.S.NAIR SREEVALSAM VEEDU, KEEZHCHERIMEL MURI, CHENGANNUR VILLAGE, CHENGANNUR TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.AJITH MURALI RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT -------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. ADDL.SECOND RESPONDENT : 2. LAKSHMI S.KURUP AGED 23 YEARS, D/O.SASIDHARA KURUP SREENILAYAM, ALA VILLAGE PENNUKARA, CHENGANNUR TALUK. IMPLEADED AS PER THE ORDER IN CRL.M.A.NO.5339 OF 2009 PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.M.S.BREEZ SRI.R.PADMAKUMAR FOR ADDL.R2 THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. --------------------------------------------- B.A.No.4030 of 2009 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 20th day of January, 2010 ORDER This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioners are accused Nos.1 to 4 in Crime No.542 of 2009 of Chengannur Police Station. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioners are under Sections 120B, 380, 451 and 461 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The date of occurrence was on 4.6.2009. The de facto complainant filed a complaint before the court of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class- Chengannur on 29.6.2009. The complaint was forwarded to the police for investigation under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the crime was registered on 1.7.2009. 4. The allegation is that the accused persons unlawfully entered into the house of the de facto complainant and committed theft of the title deeds in respect of the property of the de facto complainant, 10 sovereigns of gold ornaments, BA No.4030/2009 2 passport and certificates of the daughter of the de facto complainant and insurance certificate belonging to the de facto complainant. 5. According to the petitioners, the de facto complainant married the first petitioner after the death of his wife. The first petitioner came to the house of the de facto complainant as a home nurse to nurse the wife of the de facto complainant who was ailing. The daughter of the de facto complainant was managing a hospital belonging to the de facto complainant. The de facto complainant was working abroad. It has come out that the de facto complainant had purchased a house for the first petitioner and her family members are residing in that house. The second petitioner is the sister of the first petitioner, third petitioner is the mother of the first petitioner and the fourth petitioner is the daughter of the second petitioner. 6. It is alleged that the relationship between the de facto complainant and the first petitioner became strained. According to the petitioners, there was no incident as alleged. The case was foisted against them to deny the legitimate rights of the first petitioner as the wife of the de facto complainant. It is also BA No.4030/2009 3 pointed out that on 16.6.2009, the first petitioner filed O.S.No.199 of 2009 on the file of the court of the Munsiff of Chengannur against the de facto complainant in which she has put forward the claim that she is the wife of the de facto complainant. It is also pointed out that the complaint was filed by the de facto complainant before the Magistrate's court thereafter on 29.6.2009. 7. The Bail Application came up for hearing on several dates. On 2nd November, 2009, the following order was passed: “The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned counsel appearing for the de facto complainant's daughter submitted that the case is a fit one for settlement. The counsel submitted that if the matter is posted before the Adalath, they can effectively explore the possibilities of a settlement. Post before the Adalath. De facto complainant is at present working abroad. It is submitted by the counsel for the de facto complainant's daughter that he is expected to come to India in the last week of November. It is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that the petitioners will not be arrested until further orders in connection with Crime No.542 of 2009 of Chengannur Police Station till the matter is considered before the Adalath.” 8. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the case was posted before the Adalath on three occasions. BA No.4030/2009 4 On all the three occasions, petitioners 1 and 2 were present. Neither the de facto complainant nor his daughter was present before the Adalath. Though an application was filed by the daughter of the de facto complainant for impleading her in the proceedings, today there is no appearance by the learned counsel appearing for the daughter of the de facto complainant. 9. Taking into account the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the allegations and counter allegations, the fact that the suit is pending and the fact that the de facto complainant and his daughter failed to appear before the Adalath, 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 Rs.15,000/- 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; BA No.4030/2009 5 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 csl