IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA WEDNESDAY, THE 3RD DECEMBER 2008 / 12TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 6914 of 2008(B) -------------------------------------- CRIME NO.46/2001 OF PERUMPATTI POLICE STATION, THIRUVALLA. PETITIONER/ACCUSED : -------------------------------- SURESH BABU, AGED 46, S/O.SIVARAMAN, RESIDING AT KOTTURU PUTHEN VEETTIL, KARIPUZHA, PERINADU PO, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.N.SURESH SRI.JIJI MATHEW SRI.P.V.CHERIYAN RESPONDENTS/STATE & COMPLAINANT: ----------------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MALLAPPALLY, THIRUVALLA. BY SRI. M.S. BREEZ, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. ------------------------------ B.A. No.6914 OF 2008 ------------------------------ Dated this the 3rd day of December, 2008 O R D E R The petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offence is under Section 498(A) of I.P.C. According to prosecution, petitioner was harassing defacto complainant demanding dowry after marriage and hence on the basis of a complaint made by her, a crime was registered under Section 498(A) of I.P.C. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that the crime was registered as early as in 2001 and the parties settled the issues between them and divorce is effected. Therefore, it was decided that petitioner will not be proceeded against. But, recently petitioner came to know that warrant has been issued against petitioner and the case was taken on file and summons was issued to him on 04.09.2004 about 4 years back. But no summons was received by the petitioner and he was not aware that warrant was issued against him. 4. The petitioner is a jail warden and he was available in B.A.6914 of 2008 2 his residence and he was attending his official duties also. But it appears from the proceedings sheet that the warrant was issued against petitioner even without confirming that accused accepted the summons. The lower court took steps under Sections 82, 83 of Cr.P.C. and addressed the Chief Judicial Magistrate for sanction for entering into the register of long pending cases. But, such sanction was rejected and hence warrant is being repeated against petitioner. In the above circumstances petitioner intends to surrender before the court. But it is likely that petitioner may be remanded and it will result in irreparable injury and loss to him. Hence in the facts and circumstances of this case, it is submitted that he may be granted anticipatory bail. 5. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the petitioner may be directed to surrender before the court, and subjected to that, he has no objection in granting anticipatory bail. On hearing both sides, in the light of the relevant facts pointed out, I think it is only fit and proper that anticipatory bail can be granted to petitioner since he apprehends arrest B.A.6914 of 2008 3 on accusation of commission of a non-bailable warrant, in the peculiar facts and circumstances. Hence, the following order is passed : Petitioner shall surrender before the Magistrate court concerned within seven days from today and he shall execute self bond of Rs.10,000/- on the following terms and conditions: i. Petitioner shall make himself available for interrogation as and when directed by the Investigating Officer. ii. Petitioner shall not influence or intimidate any witness or commit any offence while on bail. The petition is allowed. K.HEMA, JUDGE pac