IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT MONDAY, THE 28TH JANUARY 2008 / 8TH MAGHA 1929 Bail Appl..No. 464 of 2008() E ---------------------------- CRIME 373/07 OF MANJESWAR POLICE STATION PETITIONERS/ACCUSED A1-A4: ------------------------------- 1. ANWAR HUSSAIN AGED 35 YEARS, S/O.ABDUL RAHIMAN, GOLIPADUPPU HOUSE, SAJIPPANADU P.O., BANTWAL TALUK, D.K.DISTRICT, KARNATAKA STATE. 2. NABEESA, AGED 50 YEARS, W/O.ABDUL RAHIMAN, GOLIPADUPPU HOUSE, SAJIPPANADU P.O., BANTWAL TALUK, D.K.DISTRICT, KARNATAKA STATE. 3. P.J.ABDULLA, AGED 60 YEARS, S/O.CHATHI HUSSAIN ABBA ,GOLIPADUPPU HOUSE, SAJIPPANADU P.O., BANTWAL TALUK, D.K.DISTRICT, KARNATAKA STATE. 4. MUHAMMED HANEEFA, AGED 25 YEARS, S/O.ABDUL RAHIMAN, GOLIPADUPPU HOUSE, SAJIPPANADU P.O., BANTWAL TALUK, D.K.DISTRICT, KARNATAKA STATE. BY ADV. SRI.K.ANAND RESPONDENTS: STATE AND COMPLAINANT: ----------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. 2. SHAHIDA BANU, AGED 28 YEARS, D/O.LATE ABDULKHADER, R/AT HIDAYATH NAGAR, SHEIK AHAMED ROAD, UPPALA, MANGALPADY VILLAGE, KASARAGOD TALUK AND DISTRICT. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR ADV.SRI.S.U.NAZER THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. ```````````````````````````````````````````````````` B.A. No. 464 OF 2008 E ```````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 28th day of January, 2008 O R D E R Application for anticipatory bail. Petitioners face allegations for offences punishable under Sections 420 and 498A IPC. The petitioners are the husband of the de facto complainant and his relatives. Crime has been registered on the basis of a private complaint filed by the de facto complainant and referred by the learned Magistrate to the police under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. 2. Marriage between the spouses took place on 29.7.07 under peculiar circumstances. The de facto complainant was scheduled to get married to another person. But, on account of some unforeseen reason, that marriage did not take place and the de facto complainant was given in marriage to the 1st petitioner herein on the very same day by the relatives. They lived together and the de facto BA.464/08 : 2 : complainant is now pregnant. They were living together till 18.11.07. It is the case of the de facto complainant that the fact that the petitioner was earlier married and has two children, was suppressed from the de facto complainant and her relatives, when the petitioner got married to the de facto complainant. It is further alleged that on 18.11.07 when the separate residence commenced, there was an assault of the de facto complainant by the petitioner. Crime has been registered. Investigation is in progress. The petitioners apprehend imminent arrest. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the allegations of cheating, assault, cruelty, etc. are being raised without any bona fides. The parties knew each other very well and it was known to everyone that the 1st petitioner had an earlier marriage and children in such wedlock. In spite of that, the marriage between the 1st petitioner and the de facto complainant took place in peculiar circumstances and it was willingly and with complete knowledge of all the BA.464/08 : 3 : circumstances that the marriage between them took place. Now, because of some strain in matrimony, false and vexatious allegations are being raised. The de facto complainant has not suffered any injury eventhough it is seen that she had gone to the doctor on 22.11.07 after the spouses started separate residence. The de facto complainant is now pregnant also. In these circumstances, subject to any appropriate conditions, anticipatory bail may be granted to the petitioners, it is prayed. 4. The learned Public Prosecutor does not oppose the application and having considered all the relevant circumstances, I am satisfied that the petitioners can be granted anticipatory bail. In the absence of opposition, it is not necessary for me to advert to the facts in any greater detail. I need only say that I do take note the peculiar circumstances under which the marriage took place as also the fact that the de facto complainant is now pregnant. Appropriate conditions can of course be imposed. BA.464/08 : 4 : 5. In the result, this petition is allowed. Following directions are issued under Section 438 Cr.P.C in favour of the petitioners. i) Petitioners shall surrender before the learned Magistrate having jurisdiction at 11 a.m on 04.02.2008. They shall be released on regular bail on condition that they execute bonds 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 3 p.m on 5.2.08 and 6.2.08 and thereafter on all Mondays and Fridays between 10 a.m and 12 noon for a period of two months. Subsequently the petitioners shall so appear 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 BA.464/08 : 5 : to arrest the petitioners and deal with them in accordance with law, as if these directions were not issued at all. (iv) If they were arrested prior to 4.2.08, they shall be released from custody on their executing a bond for Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) without any sureties, undertaking to appear before the learned Magistrate on 4.2.08. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) aks