IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA MONDAY, THE 9TH JUNE 2008 / 19TH JYAISHTA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 3680 of 2008() ----------------------------- (CRIMENO. 39/2008 OF BEDAKAM POLICE STATION) PETITIONERS/ACCUSED: --------------------------- 1. B.C.NARAYANI AGED 55 YEARS W/O. SHANKARAN, CHETTAMTHATTA HOUSE HOSDURG, KASARAGODE DISTRICT. 2. NAVEEN, S/O. SHANKARAN, CHETTAMTHATTA HOUSE,HOSDURG, KASARAGODE DISTRICT. 3. B.C.POKKAN AGED 55 YEARS,S/O. KOTTAN, CHETTAMTHATTA HOUSE,HOSDURG,KASARAGODE DISTRICT. 4. SAVITHA ,W/O.PRABHAKARAN,PANATHUR HOUSE, HOSDURG,KASARAGODE DISTRICT. 5. PRABHAKARAN , AGED 32 YEARS PANATHUR HOUSE,HOSDURG,KASARAGODE DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.ALAN PAPALI RESPONDENTS: ------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. M.S. BREEZ. THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K. HEMA, J. ------------------------------------------ Bail Appl.No. 3680 of 2008 ------------------------------------------ Dated this the 9th day of June, 2008. ORDER Petition for anticipatory bail. 2. According to prosecution, petitioners 2 to 6 are accused numbers 2 to 6 in the crime. They along with first accused went to the house of de facto complainant and demanded dowry of Rs.50,000/- to be given for the marriage which was to take place on 8.3.2008. They also threatened that the marriage would not take place as agreed, if they did not pay the money. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the first accused's marriage was fixed with the de facto complainant's daughter, and it was to take place on 8.3.2008. But, after the engagement, first accused was informed by one Chandra that he is in love with the de facto complainant's daughter and also threatened him not to marry her. He expressed his willingness to marry the girl. (The details of the said Chandran with the address are given in the petition). Hence, the proposed marriage fizzled out. 4. Petitioners 2 to 6 are the close relatives of the first accused. [B.A.3680/08] 2 They have not committed any offence as alleged, but only because the marriage did not take place in the circumstances narrated, a false complaint is now foisted against the petitioners alleging demand of dowry, it is submitted. First petitioner is missing and not available. 4. On hearing both sides, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners and the following order is passed. (i) Petitioners shall surrender before the investigating officer within 10 days from the date of this order and make themselves available for interrogation. (ii) In the event of arrest of the petitioners, they shall be produced before the Magistrate Court concerned and on production, 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 Court on condition that they shall report before the investigating officer as and when directed and co-operate with the investigation. Petition is allowed. K. HEMA, JUDGE. Krs.