IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA WEDNESDAY, THE 29TH OCTOBER 2008 / 7TH KARTHIKA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 5978 of 2008() ----------------------------- (CRIME NO.248/2008 OF KATTOOR POLICE STATION) PETITIONER/ACCUSED -------------------------------------- THANKAM, W/O.LATE KUMARAN, THARAYIL HOUSE, PULLATHARA DESOM, KARALAM VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR) SRI.K.RAVI (PARIYARATH) RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT/STATE -------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KATTOOR POLICE STATION, THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, COCHIN-682 031. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. M.S. BREEZ. THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/10/2008, ALONG WITH BA NO. 5889 OF 2008 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K. HEMA, J. --------------------------------------------------- Bail Appl.No. 5889 & 5978 of 2008 --------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 29th day of October, 2008. ORDER Petitions for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Sections 498(A), 406 and 420 of Indian Penal Code. Petitioner in B.A.No.5889 of 2008 is A1 and petitioner in B.A.No. 5978 is A2 in the crime. They are son and mother respectively. According to prosecution, de facto complainant married first accused on 8.4.2007 at Kodungallur temple and thereafter, the marriage was registered on 7.1.2008. They were living together as husband and wife. At the time of marriage, 5 sovereigns of gold and Rs.10,000/- were given to accused. But, those were misappropriated by accused and they started ill-treating de facto complainant insisting her to file a divorce petition. She was also asked to leave the house. 3. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that the allegations are absolutely false. In fact, first accused married de facto complainant by registering the marriage only on 7.1.2008. It was not an arranged marriage. After the registered marriage, she was brought to the house and she lived there for a few days and, in the meantime, [B.A.No.5889/08 & 5978/08 2 it was known that she was married to another person by name Jyothindranathan on 31.8.2007. Copy of the certificate of marriage with Jyothindranathan is Annexure-III in B.A.No.5978/08. On knowing this, her parents were informed about this and they were asked to take her back from the house, since the marriage is null and void. The 2nd accused filed a suit as O.S.No.482 of 2008 against de facto complainant and obtained an injunction order (vide Annexure III) restraining her from entering the matrimonial house. Thereafter, she filed a complaint under the Domestic Violence Act (Annexure-III). 4. On hearing both sides, I am satisfied that anticipatory bail can be granted to petitioners on conditions. Hence, the following order is passed: 1) Petitioners 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 learned Magistrate on the following conditions: i) Petitioners shall make themselves available for interrogation and co-operate with the investigation. ii) Petitioners shall report before the investigating officer as and when directed. [B.A.No.5889/08 & 5978/08 3 iii) Petitioners shall not commit any offence while on bail. Petitions are allowed. K. HEMA, JUDGE. Krs.