IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN FRIDAY, THE 19TH JUNE 2009 / 29TH JYAISHTA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 3217 of 2009 CRIME NO.457/2009 OF CHENGANNUR POLICE STATION PETITIONER/ACCUSED -------------------------------------- VISHWANATHAN PILLAI, PALAKKATTUPUTHEN VEEDU, KULADATHUSHERRI MURI, THIRUVANVANDOOR VILLAGE, CHENGANNUR. BY ADV. SRI.RINNY STEPHEN CHAMAPARAMPIL SMT. ASHA RINNY STEPHEN RESPONDENT: COMPLAINANT -------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CHENGANNUR POLICE STATION, THROUGH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.K.S.SIVAKUMAR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------ B.A. NO. 3217 OF 2009 ------------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 19th June, 2009 O R D E R This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner is the accused in Crime No.457 of 2009 of Chengannur Police Station. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 341, 354 and 511 of 376 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that on 12.5.2009, the wife of the petitioner had filed a petition before the Circle Inspector of Police against Joy, Aniyan and Saly, wife of Aniyan, making several allegations against them of having spread false information affecting the family of the petitioner. Saly, who is the third respondent in Annexure I petition, filed a complaint dated 22.5.2009 before the Court of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Chengannur, against the petitioner alleging offence under Sections 341, 354 and 511 of 376. The complaint was forwarded to the police for investigation under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and accordingly, the crime was registered. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the allegations levelled B.A. NO.3217 OF 2009 :: 2 :: against the petitioner are absolutely false and that the complaint was filed by the de facto complainant only to wreak vengeance against the petitioner. I have gone through the case diary. It is not necessary to arrive at a finding on the contentions put forward by the learned counsel for the petitioner while disposing this Bail Application. 4. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of the offence and other circumstances, I am of the view that anticipatory bail can be granted to the petitioner. There will be a direction that in the event of the arrest of the petitioner, the officer in charge of the police station shall release him on bail for a period of one month on his executing bond for Rs.25,000/- with two solvent sureties for the like amount to the satisfaction of the officer concerned, subject to the following conditions: a) The petitioner shall report before the investigating officer between 9 A.M. and 11 A.M. on all Mondays, till the final report is filed or until further orders; b) The petitioner shall appear before the investigating officer for interrogation as and when required; c) The petitioner shall not try to influence the prosecution witnesses or tamper with the evidence; d) The petitioner shall not commit any offence or indulge in any prejudicial activity while on bail; B.A. NO.3217 OF 2009 :: 3 :: e) On the expiry of the period mentioned above, the petitioner shall surrender before the Magistrate concerned and seek regular bail; f) In case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, the bail shall be liable to be cancelled. The Bail Application is allowed to the extent indicated above. (K.T.SANKARAN) Judge ahz/