IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN THURSDAY, THE 11TH JUNE 2009 / 21ST JYAISHTA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 3071 of 2009 CRIME NO.518 OF 2009 OF PATHANAMTHITTA POLICE STATION PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS 1 AND 2 --------------------------------------------------- 1. JABEELA MARY JOSEPH, AGED 36, D/O.K.C.BABU, KANDATHI PARAMBIL, DARSANA NAGAR, PATTATHANAM P.O., KOLLAM. 2. SHEELA JACOB, AGED 42, W/O.JACOB ALEXANDER, THEKKE THARAYIL, ROSH DALE, MYTHRI NAGAR NO.44, KOLLAM TOWN P.O., KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.V.V.RAJA SRI.M.T.SURESHKUMAR RESPONDENT: COMPLAINANT -------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PORSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.K.S.SIVAKUMAR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------ B.A. NO. 3071 OF 2009 B ------------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 11th June, 2009 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.518 of 2009 of Pathanamthitta Police Station. 2. The offence alleged against the petitioners is under Sections 120B, 379 and 411 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. Annexure -1 complaint was filed by the de facto complainant before the Chief Judicial Magistrate's Court, Pathanamthitta, which was forwarded to the police under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the crime was registered. The crime was registered on 28.5.2009. 4. The gist of the allegations levelled against the petitioners are the following: The first petitioner, who is the wife of the de facto complainant, removed valuable jewellery items owned by the de facto complainant from the locker in the names of the first petitioner and the de facto complainant and put the same in the locker belonging to the second petitioner in HDFC B.A. NO. 3071 OF 2009 :: 2 :: Bank. There are several allegations made by the de facto complainant against the first petitioner, his wife, including the allegation that the wife tried to administer poison on him. Before filing Annexure-1 complaint, the wife and children of the de facto complainant had filed O.P.No.318 of 2009 before the Family Court, Thiruvalla in April 2009 claiming maintenance and also claiming value of 200 sovereigns of gold ornaments. Other reliefs are also claimed in the Original Petition. In O.P.No.318 of 2009, the case of the first petitioner herein is that ornaments belonging to her were misappropriated by the de facto complainant. The first petitioner and her children have also filed a petition before the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class II, Kollam under the provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act. That case was filed on 28.4.2009 (Annexure-4). 5. 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. 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 Rupees One lakh each with two solvent sureties for the like amount to the satisfaction of the officer concerned, subject to the following conditions: B.A. NO. 3071 OF 2009 :: 3 :: a) The petitioners shall appear before the investigating officer for interrogation as and when required; 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. The Bail Application is allowed to the extent indicated above. (K.T.SANKARAN) Judge ahz/