IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA MONDAY, THE 15TH DECEMBER 2008 / 24TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 7547 of 2008() ----------------------------- CRIME NO. 972/2008 OF KAYAMKULAM POLICE STATION PETITIONERS/ACCUSED --------------------------------------- 1. BIJU @ VIJAYAKUMAR, POKATHU KIZHAKATHIL, ERUVA, KAYAMKULAM. 2. THANKAMMA, POKATHU KIZHAKATHIL, ERUVA, KAYAMKULAM. 3. DAMODARAN, POKATHU KIZHAKATHIL, ERUVA, KAYAMKULAM. 4. AYYAPPAN, POKATHU KIZHAKATHIL, ERUVA, KAYAMKULAM. 5. ANITHA, POKATHU KIZHAKATHIL, ERUVA, KAYAMKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.V.PREMCHAND RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KAYAMKULAM POLICE STATION, KAYAMKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI K.S.SIVAKUMAR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K. HEMA, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - B.A. No. 7547 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 15th day of December,2008 O R D E R Petition for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under sections 498A and 34 IPC. According to prosecution, 1st accused married de facto complainant in the year 2004 and Rs.1 lakh and 25 sovereigns of gold ornaments were given at the time of marriage. He misappropriated the same and started demanding more dowry from de facto complainant. First accused' close relatives who are accused 2 to 5 also started harassing her. De facto complainant also has a grievance that 1st accused is having a deeper relationship with his sister-in-law (A3). 3. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that 1st accused found some shortage in the gold ornaments, which were given to de facto complainant at the time of marriage. De facto complainant revealed that those were taken by her father who pledged the same. On account of this, there was a quarrel and she left the matrimonial house. She filed a complaint before the police station on 25-11-2008 alleging harassment. The parties were called to the police station and as advised, they started living together. But, later, she gave a complaint to Superintendent of Police, which was forwarded to the Kayamkulam Police Station and a crime was registered. BA 7547/08 -2- Petitioners apprehend arrest and detention. Petitioners 2 and 3 are parents of 1st accused, 4th petitioner is the brother and 5th petitioner is brother's wife. There was a compromise in the police station and they started living together. But, later she went back to her parental house and lodged a complaint before Superintendent of Police instead of Kayamkulam Police station. 4. This petition is opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that after the dispute between the parties were settled at the police station, husband and wife started living together. On the second day 1st accused brutally assaulted de facto complainant and she was forced to lodge a complaint. There are clear allegations against 1st accused regarding the matrimonial cruelty, but as far as petitioners 2 to 5 are concerned, he has no objection in granting anticipatory bail on conditions. 5. On hearing both sides, I am satisfied that petitioners 2 to 5 can be granted anticipatory bail on conditions. However, in the nature of allegations made against 1st accused, it may not be proper to grant anticipatory bail, since he is required for interrogation. 6. Hence, the following order is passed:- (1) Prayer for anticipatory bail by 1st petitioner is rejected. Hence, petitioner is directed to surrender BA 7547/08 -3- before the Magistrate court concerned or before the Investigating Officer without any delay and co- operate with the investigation. Whether he surrenders or not, police is at liberty to arrest him and proceed in accordance with law. 2) Petitioners 2 to 5 shall surrender before the Magistrate Court concerned and they shall be released on bail, on their executing a bond for Rs. 25,000/- each with two solvent sureties each, for the like amount, to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate, on the following conditions:- i) They shall make himself available for interrogation by the Investigating Officer as and when directed and co-operate with the investigation. ii) They shall not intimidate or influence any witness or commit any offence while on bail. This petition is partly allowed. K.HEMA, JUDGE. mn.