IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR MONDAY, THE 22ND NOVEMBER 2010 / 1ST AGRAHAYANA 1932 Crl.MC.No. 4088 of 2010(A) ------------------------------------- (CRIME NO.467/10 OF CHEVAYUR POLICE STATION) .................... PETITIONER/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT: --------------------------------------------------------- SIDDIQUE, S/O.MUHAMMED KOYA, RESIDING AT SAFNAS MANZIL, THIRUTHIKKUNATHTHAZHAM, MAKKADA P.O., CHERUKULAM, KOZHIKODE. BY ADVS. SRI.V.V.SURENDRAN, SMT.RESMI NANDANAN. RESPONDENTS/STATE & 2ND ACCUSED: ----------------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. SURAYYA B., W/O.T.P.SAINUDEEN, HAFEEZ MANZIL, P.O.VENGERI, KOZHIKODE-673 010. R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. I.V. PRAMOD, R2 BY ADV. SRI.P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/11/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: prv. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. -------------------------------------------------------- Crl.M.C No.4088 OF 2010 --------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 22nd day of November, 2010. O R D E R The de facto complainant in Crime.No.467 of 2010 of Chevayur police station filed this petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash Annexure-AI order passed by learned Sessions Judge, Kozhikode, where under the second respondent was granted anticipatory bail under Section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, second respondent and learned Public Prosecutor were heard. 3. The argument of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that learned Sessions Judge granted anticipatory bail to the second respondent and he is threatening the de facto complainant and others, attempted to influence the witnesses and, therefore, the bail granted is to be cancelled. Learned counsel appearing for the second respondent submitted that accused one and three were already granted regular bail and they are not prevented from residing in the same house where second respondent is also residing and second respondent has not made Crl.M.C No.4088 OF 2010 2 any attempt to influence or threaten any witness and in such circumstances petition is only be dismissed. 4. While refusing anticipatory bail to accused one and three, learned Sessions Judge granted anticipatory bail to petitioner the second respondent mother-in-law of the deceased, on conditions. Though learned counsel appearing for the petitioner argued that second respondent attempted to influence and threatened the witnesses, there is no specific allegation with regard to any particular witness who was either induced or threatened by the second respondent. Moreover petitioner the de facto complainant is residing at Cherukulam while second respondent is a resident of Vengeri. In such circumstances a condition that second respondent shall not reside in her house will serve no purpose. If the apprehension of the petitioner is about the absence of a condition in Annexure-A1 order directing second respondent not to influence or threaten the witnesses, such a condition could be incorporated. I find no necessity to cancel the bail as sought for. Petition is disposed directing the second respondent not to threaten, induce or influence any person from disclosing facts Crl.M.C No.4088 OF 2010 3 known to them to the investigating officer or court or in any way influence the witnesses who have given statements against the accused. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE. mns