IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA FRIDAY, THE 17TH OCTOBER 2008 / 25TH ASWINA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 5557 of 2008() ------------------------------------ CRIME NO.512/2008 OF VARKALA POLICE STATION PETITIONERS/ACCUSED : ------------------------------- 1. SHABIN NOOR,M S/O. ABDUL NOOR, SHA MANZIL, EDAVA, VARKALA. 2. SHANIFFA, W/O. ABDUL NOOR, SHA MANZIL, EDAVA, VARKALA. 3. SHABNA, D/O. ABDUL NOOR, SHA MANZIL, EDAVA, VARKALA. 4. SHABNA, D/O. ABDUL NOOR, SHA MANZIL, EDAVA, VARKALA. BY ADV. SRI.NAGARAJ NARAYANAN SRI.SAIJO HASSAN RESPONDENT/STATE : --------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.K.S.SIVAKUMAR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISISON ON 17/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. ------------------------------ B.A. No.5557 OF 2008 ------------------------------ Dated this the 17th day of October, 2008 O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Sections 498A and 34 of I.P.C. According to prosecution, the defacto complainant and first accused were married on 15.10.2000. At the time of marriage, Rs.5Lakhs and 15 sovereigns of gold ornaments were given and those were taken by the accused. On the very next day onwards, she was forced to sell an estate which stands in her name and a portion was sold. When she refused to sell the other portion, she was harassed by the accused. She was also told that he married the defacto complainant only for discharging his debt and liabilities. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the first accused was in gulf and he came back on 24.07.2008 and when he went to the house of the defacto complainant she refused to come. She made a complaint thereafter. It was pointed out that the marriage took place in the year 2000 and the complaint is made only in 2008. B.A.5557 of 2008 2 4. Learned Public Prosecutor opposed this bail application and submitted that there are serious allegations against the first accused. But it was pointed out that the defacto complainant was forced to sell her estate and 3 acres of estate were sold and the money was handed over to the first accused. Thereafter also there was pressure to sell the balance property and get money and she was harassed with an intention to grab money. But as far as accused Nos.2 to 4 are concerned, who are mother-in-law and sisters-in-law, there are only general allegations and hence he has no objection in granting anticipatory bail to accused Nos.2 to 4, it is submitted. On hearing both sides, I do not think it fit to grant anticipatory bail to the first accused, considering the nature of allegations made. But accused Nos. 2 to 4 can be granted anticipatory bail on conditions. The crime was registered on 25.08.2008 and the accused have not surrendered before the Investigating Officer. Hence, the following order is passed: 1. Prayer for anticipatory bail by first accused is rejected. B.A.5557 of 2008 3 2. Accused Nos.2 to 4 shall surrender before the Magistrate court concerned and if bail application is filed, they shall be released on bail on their executing bond for Rs.25,000/- each with two solvent sureties each for like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate on the following conditions : i. They shall co-operate with the investigation and report before the Investigating Officer as and when directed. ii. They shall not commit any offence while on bail. iii. They shall not influence or intimidate any witness. 3. The first accused is directed to surrender before the Investigating Officer within seven days from today and co-operate with the investigation. With this direction, this petition is partly allowed. K.HEMA, JUDGE pac