IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT WEDNESDAY, THE 20TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 1ST PHALGUNA 1929 Bail Appl..No. 1001 of 2008() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.69/08 OF PARAPPANANGADI POLICE STATION : PETITIONERS/ACCUSED ------------------------------------ 1. MUJEEB RAHMAN, S/O.MAMMED, CHEMBRA HOUSE, THIROORANGADI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 2. SAIDALAVI, S/O.MAMMED, CHEMBRA HOUSE, THIROORANGADI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.BABU S. NAIR SRI.K.RAKESH RESPONDENTS: STATE ------------------ THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PARAPPANANGADI POLICE STATION - THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-31. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.JAI GEORGE THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J ------------------------------------ B.A.No.1001 of 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 20th day of February, 2008 ORDER Application for anticipatory bail. Petitioners (A1 and A2) are brothers. The defacto complainant is the wife of the 1st accused. Marriage had taken place in 1995. The spouses are blessed with 3 children. After about 13 years of long matrimony, there are certain disputes and differences now. The defacto complainant/wife resides along with her 3 children in another house. The petitioners had allegedly gone to the said house. They entered the house of the defacto complainant. The 1st accused allegedly wanted to see his children. There was differences and disagreements. The 1st accused allegedly kicked his wife/defacto complainant. Crime has been registered. Investigation is in progress. The petitioners apprehend imminent arrest. Section 452 I.P.C is the only non bailable offence alleged. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioners prays, the learned Public Prosecutor does not oppose that prayer and I am satisfied in the facts and circumstances of this case that anticipatory bail can be granted to the petitioners. In coming to B.A.No.1001 of 2008 2 this conclusion, I have considered the totality of circumstances including the nature of the matrimonial disputes. In the absence of opposition, it is not necessary for me to advert to facts in any greater detail in this order. 3. In the result, the Bail Application is, allowed. The following directions are issued under Section 438 Cr.P.C. i) The petitioners shall appear before the learned Magistrate at 11 a.m on 27.02.08. They shall be enlarged on regular bail on their executing a bond for Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five thousand only) each with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate; ii) The petitioners shall make themselves available for interrogation before the Investigating Officer between 10 a.m and 4 p.m on 28.02.08 and 29.02.08. Thereafter the petitioners shall make themselves available for interrogation before the Investigating Officer between 10 a.m and 12 noon on all Mondays for a period of one month and subsequently as and when directed by the Investigating Officer in writing to do so; iii) If the petitioners do not appear before the learned Magistrate as directed in clause (i), directions issued above shall thereafter stand revoked and the police shall be at liberty to B.A.No.1001 of 2008 3 arrest the petitioners and deal with them in accordance with law as if those directions were not issued at all; iv) If the petitioners were arrested prior to their surrender on 27.02.08 as directed in clause (1) above, they shall be released from custody on their executing a bond for Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five thousand only) each without any sureties undertaking to appear before the learned Magistrate on 27.02.08. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) rtr/-