IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN FRIDAY, THE 9TH DECEMBER 2011 / 18TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 Bail Appl..No. 7741 of 2011 CRIME NO.384 OF 2011 OF PATTAMBI POLICE STATION, PALAKKAD. PETITIONERS/IST ACCUSED ------------------------------------------- GEETHA K., AGED 44 YEARS, W/O.KARUNAKARAN MASTER, KARUNYA HOUSE, VALLAPPUZHA, OTTAPALAM TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.BABU S. NAIR SRI.K.RAKESH RESPONDENT: STATE -------------------- THE STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PATTAMBI POLICE STATION-THROGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-682031. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.K.K.RAJEEV THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09/12/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------ Bail Appl. NO. 7741 OF 2011 ------------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 9th day of December, 2011 O R D E R This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner is accused No.1 in Crime No.384 of 2011 of Pattambi Police Station, Palakkad District. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 406, 420 and 354 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The second accused is the husband of the petitioner. The defacto complainant is the sister of the petitioner. The allegation is that the property belonging to the defacto complainant was transferred in favour of the petitioner on the understanding that the defacto complainant would be looked after by the petitioner. The petitioner did not fulfill her promise. It was also alleged that the second accused outraged the modesty of the defacto complainant. 4. The petitioner and her husband filed an application for BAIL APPL. NO.7741 OF 2011 :: 2 :: anticipatory bail before the learned Sessions Judge. The learned Sessions Judge, by the order dated 6th September, 2011, granted anticipatory bail in favour of the second accused. However, anticipatory bail was refused to the petitioner herein. 5. When the Bail Application came up for admission on 1st December, 2011, the following order was passed: “5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. 6. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case and the nature of the offence, I am of the view that before considering the question of granting anticipatory bail, the petitioner should be directed to appear before the investigating officer. Accordingly, there will be a direction to the petitioner to appear before the investigating officer on 5th December, 2011. 7. Post on 9th December, 2011. 8. It is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that the petitioner will not be arrested in connection with Crime No.384 of 2011 of Pattambi Police Station , till 13th December, 2011. BAIL APPL. NO.7741 OF 2011 :: 3 :: 9. The petitioner shall co-operate with the investigating officer in the matter of investigation and for recovery of incriminating materials, if any. The petitioner shall produce a copy of this order before the investigating officer.” 6. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the direction in the order dated 1st December, 2011 has been complied with by the petitioner. 7. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of the offence and also taking note of the fact that the direction in the order dated 1st December, 2011 has been complied with by the petitioner, I am of the view that anticipatory bail can be granted to the petitioner. There will be a direction that in the event of the arrest of the petitioner, the officer in charge of the police station shall release her on bail on her executing bond for `10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) with two solvent sureties for the like amount to the satisfaction of the officer concerned, subject to the following conditions: BAIL APPL. NO.7741 OF 2011 :: 4 :: a) The petitioner shall appear before the investigating officer for interrogation as and when required; b) The petitioner shall not try to influence the prosecution witnesses or tamper with the evidence; c) The petitioner shall not commit any offence or indulge in any prejudicial activity while on bail; d) In case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, the bail shall be liable to be cancelled. The Bail Application is allowed to the extent indicated above. (K.T.SANKARAN) Judge ahz/