IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA WEDNESDAY, THE 4TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 15TH MAGHA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 269 of 2009() ---------------------------------------- (CRIME NO.NOT KNOWN OF THIRUVANANTHAPURAM MEDICAL COLLEGE POLICE STATION) APPLICANT(S): ACCUSED: ----------------------------------------- 1. ARAVINDHAKSHA KURUP, AGED 60 YEARS, S/O. ACHUTHAN PILLAI, “NANDANAM”, RAMANKULANGARA, BHARAT NAGAR 65/N, KOLLAM. 2.VIMALA, AGED 54 YEARS, W/O.ARAVINDHAKSHA KURUP, “NANDANAM', RAMANKULANGARA, BHARAT NAGAR, 65/N, KOLLAM. 2. VINOD A, AGED 27 YEARS, S/O. ARAVAINDHAKSHA KURUP, “NANDNAM”, RAMANKULANGARA, BHARAT NAGAR, 65/N, KOLLAM. BY ADVS.MR.PAUL MATHEW (PERUMPILLIL), MR.P.V.SREENIJIN SMT.K.B.SONY MRI.PRASUN.S MR.SANU.S.PANICKER MR.K.T.BOSCO MR.ALAN PAPALI RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT & STATE: ------------------------------------------------------------------ STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM REPRESENTING S.I. OF POLICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM MEDICAL POLICE STATION. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR. K.S.SIVAKUMAR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss K.HEMA, J. ----------------------------------------- B.A.No.269 of 2009 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 4th February, 2009 O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offence is under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. Petitioners are accused 2, 3 and 1, who are father-in-law, mother-in-law and husband of de facto complainant. According to prosecution, petitioners were harassing de facto complainant ever since the marriage demanding more money and dowry, after already misappropriating money and gold given to her at the time of marriage. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that petitioners are innocent of the allegations made. The marriage between first accused and de facto complainant took place on 16.3.2008. The first accused is a Manager of an Insurance Company. Thereafter, the parties were living hapily in the house. But, de facto complainant did not conceive. Therefore, she was taken to a doctor for consultation and as per Annexure-I dated 1.10.2008, both parties had consultation BA.269/09 2 with the doctor, when she was having urinary track infection and the medical record reveals that both of them expressed their desire to conceive. Just after one month, de facto complainant was taken away by her parents by force on 8.12.2008 and she was detained in her parental house. First accused moved a petition for habeas corpus and when de facto complainant appeared before the court, she stated that first accused is mad and that she was not detained by any person etc. She was therefore, allowed to go with the parents. Thereafter, first accused attempted to commit suicide on two occasions. Annexure-II is a document issued by the doctor relating to this, which shows that on 21.12.2008, she attempted to commit suicide by cutting the vein and thereafter by hanging and both attempts were futile. First accused was also reportedly found to be depressed. 4. Learned counsel for petitioners also submitted that the allegations that there was demand of dowry is absolutely incorrect. In fact, various amounts were deposited in the Insurance Company in the name of de facto complainant and BA.269/09 3 also in the name of first accused and also by showing de facto complainant as the nominee. Annexures 3 to 13 would prove this fact. But, after filing of the habeas corpus petition and disposal of the same, a private complaint is filed by de facto complainant making false allegation, it is submitted. According to petitioners, the only reason for the marital disharmony is that de facto complainant was not able to conceive after the marriage. 5. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that as per the allegations in the complaint, de facto complainant was beaten up and was taken to her house on an earlier occasion and first accused is stated to be mentally sick and she cannot live with the first accused etc. 6. On hearing both sides, considering the various facts submitted by learned counsel for petitioner, which are supported by documents also, and on a prima facie satisfaction of the relevant facts, I find that anticipatory bail can be granted to petitioners and hence, the following order is passed: BA.269/09 4 Petitioners shall surrender before the Magistrate Court concerned within seven days from today and they shall be released on bail on their executing bond for Rs.25,000/- each with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the Magistrate Court concerned, on the following conditions: i) Petitioners shall report before the investigating officer as and when directed. iii). Petitioner shall not tamper with evidence or influence the witnesses or intimidate them or commit any offence while on bail. Petition is allowed. K.HEMA, JUDGE vgs.