IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA THURSDAY, THE 19TH AUGUST 2010 / 28TH SRAVANA 1932 Bail Appl..No. 2613 of 2010() --------------------------------- CRIME NO. NOT KNOWN OF THRIKAKARA POLICE STATION ........................... PETITIONERS/ACCUSED : ------------------------------ 1. JYOTHI KARANAVAR M.O,AGED 29, S/O.OMANAKUTTAN KARANAVAR, RESIDING AT JYOTHI VILLA NO.4, PARK LANE,ABOOBAKER ROAD, PADAMUGAL,KAKKANADU KARA,VAZHAKKALA VILLAGE, KANAYANNUR TALUK FROM MONI VEENA,THONALUR PANDALAM 2. LETHA KARNAVAR,AGED 55, RESIDING AT MONI VEENA, THONALLOOR,PANDALAM. BY ADV. SRI.C.RAJENDRAN RESPONDENT: --------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP.THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, THRIKKAKARA POLICE STATION, THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM. ADV. SRI.PRATHEESH.P FOR ADDL.R BY SRI. V.TEKCHAND PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. ------------------ B.A. No. 2613 of 2010 ----------------------------- Dated this the 19th day of August, 2010 O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offence is under Section 498 A of the Indian Penal Code. According to prosecution, first accused married de facto complainant on 27.05.2007. At the time of the marriage, de facto complainant was given 150 sovereigns of gold and a car. From the second day of the marriage itself petitioners started demanding more dowry. The gold ornaments were misappropriated by the petitioners, who are the husband and mother-in-law. De facto complainant was also assaulted by the first accused. She attempted to commit suicide because of the torture. First accused is having illicit relationship with a woman abroad and on this count also, severe cruelty is inflicted on the de facto complainant. 3. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that anticipatory bail in respect of the first accused is not pressed. But as far as the second accused is concerned, there are only vague allegations in the complaint and she is prepared to abide by any condition as imposed by this court, it is submitted. 4. Learned counsel for the de facto complainant and learned Public Prosecutor were also heard. Both of them submitted that in B.A. No. 2613 / 2010 2 respect of the second accused, there is no objection in granting anticipatory bail but the allegations made against first accused are serious. 5. On hearing both sides and on going through the records, I am satisfied that second accused can be granted to anticipatory bail on conditions. Hence, the following order is passed: 1. Anticipatory bail application in so far as it relates to the first accused is dismissed as withdrawn. 2. Second accused shall, in the event of her arrest be released on bail on her executing a bond for Rs. 25,000/- with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the arresting officer on the following conditions: i). She shall report before the investigating officer as and when directed and co-operate with the investigation. ii). She shall not influence or intimidate any witness or tamper with the evidence. This petition is partly allowed. K. HEMA, JUDGE ln