IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA WEDNESDAY, THE 11TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 22ND MAGHA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 7360 of 2008() ------------------------------------------ (CRIME NO.893/2008 OF KAYAMKULAM POLICE STATION) PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 TO 3: ---------------------------------------------- 1. AJITH, AGED 30 YEARS, S/O.SOMAN, KOCHYATHU, PADEETTATHIL, RANDAMKUTTY, KAYAMKULAM. 2. SOMAN, KOCHAYATHU PADEETTATHIL, RANDAMKUTTY, KAYAMKULAM. 3. ANANDAVALLY, W/O.SOMAN, KOCHAYATHU, PADEETTATHIL, RANDAMKUTTY, KAYAMKULAM. BY ADVS. MR.VINCENT JOSEPH, MR.ANIL R.NATH MR.A.V.CHARLES RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT: ---------------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KAYAMKULAM, THROUGH BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR. C.M.KAMMAPPU THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss K.HEMA, J. ----------------------------------------- B.A.No. 7360 of 2008 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 11th January, 2009 O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Sections 498A and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. According to prosecution, petitioners are husband, father-in-law and mother-in-law of de facto complainant. After the marriage, first accused illtreated de facto complainant by physically and mentally, without any sufficient reason and on 28th July, 2008, she was forced to leave the house with her father. 3. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that de facto complainant left the house abandoning the child in the matrimonial house. For the past three years, they were living separately and in the year 2008 a petition was filed for custody of the child. The allegations made in the petition and in the complaint are contradictory. There is no allegation against accused 2 and 3. Therefore, anticipatory bail may be granted, it is submitted. BA.7360/08 2 4. This petition is opposed with respect to first accused. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that there are no serious allegations against accused 2 and 3 and hence, he has no objection in granting anticipatory bail, but there are allegations against first accused and it is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail to first accused. 5. On hearing both sides, considering the nature of allegations made against first accused, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to him. Though it is submitted that there are contradictions in the allegations in the O.P and the complaint, copy of the O.P is not produced. However, anticipatory bail can be granted to petitioners 2 and 3 and the following order is passed: (1) First petitioner shall surrender before the investigating officer or the Magistrate Court concerned forthwith and co-operate with the investigation. Whether he surrenders or not, police is at liberty to arrest him and proceeding in accordance with law. BA.7360/08 3 (2) No further application by first petitioner in this crime will be entertained by this Court. (3) Petitioners 2 and 3 shall surrender before the Magistrate Court 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 2 and 3 shall report before the investigating officer as and when directed. ii). Petitioners 2 and 3 shall not tamper with evidence or influence the witnesses or intimidate them or commit any offence while on bail. Petition is partly allowed. K.HEMA, JUDGE vgs.