IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN WEDNESDAY, THE 28TH OCTOBER 2009 / 6TH KARTHIKA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 5566 of 2009() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.658/09, ATTINGAL POLICE STATION PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 TO 4 ---------------------------------------------- 1. NAJEEB, KALIYILIL VEEDU, KARARA, MADATHARA P.O., KOLLAM. 2. RAMLA BEEGUM, -DO- -DO- 3. NAZAR, NOW RESIDING AT AMEEN MANZIL, PALLIMUKKU, KADAKKAL, KOLLAM. 4. MINI @ NEEMA BEEGUM, W/O.NAZAR, -DO-. BY ADV. SRI.SAJU.S.A RESPONDENT(S): STATE -------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ATTINGAL POLICE STATION THROUGH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. ADDL. R2 IMPLEADED 2. HARA ONE.A. D/O.M.A.RASHEED CHERUVAKKAL VILLAGE TRIVANDRUM. IMPLEADED AS ADDL. 2ND RESPONDENT VIDE ORDER DATED 6.10.2009 IN CRL.M.A.NO.5443/09. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.M.S.BREEZ SRI.SIBY MATHEW FOR ADDL.R2 SRI.PHILIP J.VETTICKATTU FOR ADDL.R2 THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. --------------------------------------------- B.A.No.5566 of 2009 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 28th day of October, 2009 ORDER This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioners are accused Nos.1 to 4 in Crime No.658 of 2009 of Attingal Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram District. 2. The offence alleged against the petitioners is under Section 498A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. When the Bail Application came up for hearing on 6.10.2009, after hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel who appeared for the defacto complainant, the matter was referred to the Lok Adalath to explore the possibilities of a settlement. 4. The learned counsel for the parties submitted that inspite of the best efforts taken by all, the disputes could not be settled. 5. The first accused is the husband of the defacto complainant. Accused Nos.2, 3 and 4 are respectively the BA No.5566/2009 2 mother, brother and sister-in-law of the first accused. After having heard the counsel at length, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the first petitioner may be permitted to withdraw his request for granting anticipatory bail. There is no reason why the prayer should be rejected. Accordingly, the Bail Application is dismissed in so far as it relates to the first petitioner. 6. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of the offence and other circumstances, I am of the view that petitioners 2 to 4, who are respectively accused Nos.2 to 4 are entitled to get anticipatory bail. There will be a direction that in the event of the arrest of petitioners 2 to 4, the officer in charge of the police station shall release them on bail on their executing bond for Rs.15,000/- each with two solvent sureties for the like amount to the satisfaction of the officer concerned, subject to the following conditions: a) Petitioners 2 to 4 shall appear before the investigating officer for interrogation as and when required; b) Petitioners 2 to 4 shall not try to influence the prosecution witnesses or tamper with the evidence; BA No.5566/2009 3 c) Petitioners 2 to 4 shall not commit any offence or indulge in any prejudicial activity while on bail; d) In case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, the bail shall be liable to be cancelled. The Bail Application is dismissed as withdrawn in so far as it relates to the first petitioner and the Bail Application is allowed in so far as it relates to petitioners 2, 3 and 4. K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE csl