IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR FRIDAY, THE 28TH MARCH 2008 / 8TH CHAITHRA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 489 of 2008() ------------------------ CMP.140/2008 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-II, HOSDRUG .................... PETITIONER: DEFACTO COMPLAINANT ------------------------------------------ AMBIKA, D/O. NARAYANAN K., RESIDING AT PARAPPAKKETTU, P.O.PERIYA, HOSDURG TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU SRI.P.M.RAFIQ RESPONDENTS: PETITIONERS AND RESPONDENTS --------------------------------------------------------- 1. P.CHAKRAPANI, S/O. LATE KUNHIRAMAN, THUSHARA, ALAKKATTU, PANAYAL VILLAGE. 2. PUSHPANGATHAN P., S/O. LATE KUNHIRAMAN, THUSHARA, ALAKKOTTU, PEON DISTRICT BANK, PALAKKANNU BRANCH. 3. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTING THE S.H.O. OF BAKEL POLICE STATION. BY ADV. SRI. M.S. BREEZE, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.S.RAJEEV THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR , J. ========================== CRL.M.C. No. 489 of 2008 ========================== Dated this the 28th day of March, 2008. O R D E R The petitioner, who is the de facto complainant in Crime No. 34 of 2008 of Bekel Police Station registered for offences punishable under Sections 498A and 511, 376 and 506(i) r/w Section 34 IPC, challenges the order dated 16.01.2008 passed in C.M.P. No. 140/2008 by the Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Hosdurg granting bail to accused Nos. 1 and 2 subject to certain conditions. According to the petitioner, A1 who is her husband and A2, who is her husband's brother should not have been granted bail by the learned Magistrate and she seeks cancellation of the bail granted to them. 2. The learned Magistrate has taken into consideration the fact that even going by the averments in the complaint there was only an attempt to commit rape and the petitioner lodged the complaint one month after the alleged occurrence. It is too early to consider whether the delay is supported by valid reasons or CRL.M.C. NO. 489/2008 : 2 : not. But, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case now available, I do not think that the court below had gone wrong in granting bail to accused Nos. 1 and 2 subject to certain conditions. However, the condition that the accused Nos. 1 and 2 shall not repeat any similar offence during the period of bail is substituted by a condition that accused Nos. 1 and 2 shall not commit any offence while on bail, and that breach of the bail condition shall entail cancellation of bail. V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE. rv CRL.M.C. NO. 489/2008 : 3 :