IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA TUESDAY, THE 10TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 21ST MAGHA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 3929 of 2008() ---------------------------------------- CRIME NO.110/08 OF PULIKEEZHU POLICE STATION, PATHANAMTHITTA. ......... PETITIONER (S) / ACCUSED NOS. 1 TO 4 ------------------------ 1. SANTHILAL, AGED 27 YEARS, S/O.K.SASI, 'PRASANTHI', NORTH ARYAD, ALAPPUZHA. 2. K.SASI, AGED 54 YEARS, S/O.LATE RAJAPPAN PILLAI, 'PRASANTHI', NORTH ARYAD, ALAPPUZHA, 3. R.VASANTHI, W/O.K.SASI,'PRASANTHI', NORTH ARYAD, ALAPPUZHA. 4. PRASANTH, S/O.K.SASI, 'PRASANTHI', NORTH ARYAD, ALAPPUZHA. BY ADVS.MR.N.RAGHURAJ SMT.K.AMMINIKUTTY RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT -------------------------- STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PULIKEEZHU POLICE STATION, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR.K.S.SIVAKUMAR SRI.SUNNY MATHEW(AMICUS CURAE) THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. ----------------------------------------- B.A.No. 3929 of 2008 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 10th February, 2009 O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 447, 458, 383 and 384 of the Indian Penal Code. According to prosecution, first accused married de facto complainant and after the marriage, all the accused being the husband and relatives harassed de facto complainant and inflicted matrimonial cruelty. 3. First accused was arrested during the pendency of this petition on 13.6.2008 and he was produced before the Magistrate Court. According to learned counsel for petitioners, it was a deliberate attempt to harass petitioners, ignoring the fact that this petition was pending before this Court. During the pendency of this petition, an interim anticipatory bail was granted in favour of petitioners 2 and 4. No serious allegations are made against petitioners 2 and 4. Hence, anticipatory bail may be granted, it is submitted. BA.3929/08 2 4. On the peculiar facts and circumstances, learned Public Prosecutor submitted that he has no objection in granting anticipatory bail to petitioners 2 to 4. 5. On considering the rival contentions, I am satisfied that anticipatory bail can be granted to petitioners 2 to 6 and hence, the following order is passed: (1) Prayer for anticipatory bail by first petitioner is rejected as infructuous. (2) Petitioners 2 to 4 shall surrender before the Magistrate Court concerned within seven days from today and they shall be released on bail on their executing a bond for Rs.25,000/- with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the Magistrate Court concerned, on the following conditions: i) Petitioners 2 to 4 shall report before the investigating officer as and when directed. ii). Petitioners 2 to 4 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.