IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN WEDNESDAY, THE 19TH AUGUST 2009 / 28TH SRAVANA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 4400 of 2009 CRIME NO.350 OF 2009 OF THE PALAKKAD TOWN SOUTH POLICE STATION APPLICANTS: ACCUSED: ------------------------------ 1. SIVADASAN,CHIEF MANAGER,R.B.O,S.B.I. OFFICE, NEAR KAVITHA THEATRE,KANNUR. 2. VANAJAMOL,W/O.SIVADASAN,JUNIOR HEALTH INSPECTOR, P.H.CENTRE,UZHAVOOR,KOTTAYAM. RESIDING AT MADATHIL HOUSE,ARUMANOOR(P.0),KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.MVS.NAMBOOTHIRY RESPONDENT: COMPLAINANT: --------------- STATE OF KERALA- REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.JIKKU JACOB THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------ B.A. NO. 4400 OF 2009 ------------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 19th August, 2009 O R D E R This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioners are accused Nos.1 and 2 in Crime No.350 of 2009 of Palakkad Town South Police Station. 2. The offence alleged against the petitioners is under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The de facto complainant filed a complaint before the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Palakkad, which was forwarded to the police under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The crime was accordingly registered. 4. I have gone through the case diary. Series of incidents have been mentioned. The first petitioner is a Bank Manager. The second petitioner is his wife. The de facto complainant is a widow. It B.A. NO. 4400 OF 2009 :: 2 :: is stated that the first accused made her believe that the marriage between accused Nos.1 and 2 was divorced. Later, the marriage between the first accused and the de facto complainant was solemnized at Guruvayoor. They lived together for some time. Later, the de facto complainant came to know that the first accused used to visit the house of the second accused. Only at that time, she realised that the marriage between accused Nos.1 and 2 was not divorced. Stating that all the claims of the second accused would be settled, it is alleged that money was also taken from the de facto complainant. The de facto complainant, accused Nos.1 and 2 all are employed. 5. Taking into account the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of the offence and other circumstances, I am of the view that anticipatory bail can be granted to the petitioners. There will be a direction that in the event of the arrest of the petitioners, the officer in charge of the police station shall release them on bail on their executing bond for Rs.25,000/- each with two solvent sureties for the like amount to the satisfaction of the officer concerned, subject to the following conditions: B.A. NO. 4400 OF 2009 :: 3 :: a) The petitioners shall appear before the investigating officer for interrogation as and when required; b) The petitioners shall not try to influence the prosecution witnesses or tamper with the evidence; c) The petitioners 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/