IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN TUESDAY, THE 13TH DECEMBER 2011 / 22ND AGRAHAYANA 1933 Bail Appl..No. 8428 of 2011() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.1780/2011 OF CENTRAL POLICE STATION ERNAKULAM DISTRICT PETITIONER: ACCUSED : ------------------------------------- GIBIN JOY, AGED 27 YEARS S/O.AUGUSTINE JOY, NEDUNILATHU HOUSE NELLIKAL ROAD, KUNDANOOR, MARADU, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.T.K.RAJESHKUMAR RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE CENTRAL POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.R.RANJITH THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13/12/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. --------------------------------------------- Bail Appln.No.8428 of 2011 ---------------------------------------------- Dated this the 13th day of December, 2011 ORDER This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner is the accused in Crime No.1780 of 2011 of Central Police Station, Ernakulam District. 2. The offence alleged against the petitioner is under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the de facto complainant. 4. The learned counsel for the de facto complainant submitted that the petitioner and the de facto complainant are residing separately. She is residing with her mother. She is the only earning member in the family. It is alleged that the petitioner is not allowing her to live and work peacefully. It is alleged that on 30/05/2011 she was attacked at her work place. Again, on another occasion, the petitioner attempted to attack her at the High Court Junction. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the de facto complainant that even if the Bail Appln.No.8428/2011 : 2 : Court inclined to grant bail to the petitioner, sufficient safeguard may be provided to see that the petitioner does not harass and humiliate the de facto complainant and that he allows her to live and work peaceably. The submission made by the learned counsel for the de facto complainant is just and reasonable. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner would never indulge himself in any activities to interfere with the peaceful living and employment of the de facto complainant. This submission is recorded. 5. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, 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 on his executing bond for `10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) 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 alternate Mondays, till the final report is filed or until further orders; Bail Appln.No.8428/2011 : 3 : B) The petitioner shall not cause any hindrance to the employment of the de facto complainant or her peaceful living with her mother; C) The petitioner shall appear before the investigating officer for interrogation as and when required; D) The petitioner shall not try to influence the prosecution witnesses or tamper with the evidence. E) The petitioner shall not commit any offence or indulge in any prejudicial activity while on 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 skj True copy P.A. to Judge