IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR TUESDAY, THE 12TH MAY 2009 / 22ND VAISAKHA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 2239 of 2009 ------------------------------------ (CRIME NO.459/2009 OF PANANGAD POLICE STATION) PETITIONERS: -------------------- 1. ABRAHAM, SHARON, 29/614, VYTTILA.P.O, ERNAKULAM. 2. REGGIE ABRAHAM, SHARON, 29/614, VYTTILA.P.O, ERNAKULAM. 3. SHERIN REGGIE ABRAHAM, SHARON, 29/614, VYTTILA.P.O, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.P.P.JACOB RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- 1. THE CIRLCE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PANANGAD POLICE STATION, PANANGAD, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PANANGAD POLICE STATION, PANANGAD, ERNAKULAM. 3. ROSALIND THOMAS, D/O. ABRAHAM, KRIPALAYAM, JOHN MILL ROAD, SOUTH BAZAR, KANNUR. 4. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. R1,R2 & R4 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTORSRI.V.TEK CHAND SRI.V.RAMKUMAR NAMBIAR FOR R3 THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12/05/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: C.T.RAVIKUMAR, J. ------------------------------------------- B.A.No.2239 of 2009 ------------------------------------------ Dated, this the 12th day of May, 2009 ORDER This is an application for anticipatory bail filed by the petitioners who are accused Nos.1 to 3 in Crime No.459 of 2009 of Panangad Police Station. They filed this petition as they apprehend arrest in connection with the alleged offences under Sections 120B, 404, 467, 477, 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. Petitioners and the de facto complainant are close relatives and in fact, the first petitioner herein is none other than the father of the de facto complainant and the others are her brother and sister in law. Of course, there is civil dispute pending between them. 3. In the nature of the allegations levelled against each other and the progress of the investigation in the crime, I think anticipatory bail can be granted to the petitioners without prejudice to the prospects of the investigation in the matter. Of course, the learned counsel for the de facto complainant vehemently opposed the same. However, having regard to the B.A.No.2239 of 2009 2 nature of the allegations and the relationship between the parties, I think it is better not to allow to precipitate the matter and to have an amicable settlement in the matter, it is better to permit the petitioners to agitate the matter before a competent civil court rather than accusing each other for commission of heinous crimes. 4. Accordingly, this application is allowed on the following terms: i) The petitioners herein, in the event of their arrest, shall be released on bail on each of them executing a bond for Rs.25000/- with two solvent sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the officer conducting the arrest. ii) Petitioners herein shall co-operate with the conduct of the investigation and for that purpose they shall appear before the investigating officer as and when their presence is required by him. However, I make it clear that it will not be open to the investigating officer to snatch away any document which is already in the possession of the petitioners or the de facto complainant and hand over the same to the other. He shall keep self restraint in the matter. He shall conduct only an impartial investigation in the matter. B.A.No.2239 of 2009 3 iii) Petitioners shall not tamper with or attempt to tamper with evidence or intimidate or influence or attempt to intimidate or influence the witnesses. C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE vns