IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN MONDAY, THE 28TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 7TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 Bail Appl..No. 9597 of 2011() ----------------------------- Crime No.272 of 2011 of Eravipuram Police Station, Kollam. PETITIONERS: ------------------------------ 1. SHAHUL HAMEED, S/O.ABBOBACKKER KUTTY,AGED 58, GREEN LAND,THEJUS NAGAR-141, THATTAMALA P.O,KOLLAM 2. RAHYANATH, AGED 52, W/O.SHAHUL HAMEED, GREEN LAND, THEJUS NAGAR-141, THATTAMALA P.O, KOLLAM BY ADV. SRI.P.MARTIN JOSE SRI.M.A.MOHAMMED SIRAJ SRI.P.PRIJITH SRI.ANEESH JAMES RESPONDENT(S): --------------- THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM (CRIME NO.272 OF 2011 OF ERAVIPURAM POLICE STATION KOLLAM) BY STATE PROSECUTOR SRI.T.ASAF ALI THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. --------------------------------- B.A. No.9597 OF 2011 --------------------------------- Dated this the 28th day of November , 2011 ORDER This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Petitioners are accused Nos.2 and 3 in Crime No.272 of 2011 of Eravipuram Police Station, Kollam. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioners are under Sections 498A, 120B, 420 and 406 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 4 and 6(2) of the Dowry Prohibition Act. 3. The petitioners are the father-in-law and the mother- in-law of the defacto complainant. They moved an application for anticipatory bail before the Sessions Court, Kollam. The Sessions Court allowed the application, as per the order dated 15th March, 2011, the operative portion of which reads as B.A.No. 9597 OF 2011 2 follows: “When the gravity of the offence, time of its filing, allegations made, stage of investigation are considered, I am of the view that bail sought for can be granted only on stringent conditions. Hence the following directions. Petitioners are to appear before the investigating officer/respondent on 19.3.2011 in between 9 AM and 11 AM and in case the investigating officer requires the arrest of the petitioners, he will arrest them and in case of arrest, will release them on bail on they executing bonds for Rs.15,000/-(Rupees fifteen thousand only) each, with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the arresting officer, on the conditions that:- i) They will appear before the investigating officer on every Fridays in between 9 AM and 12 noon and on all days as required by the investigating officer, for investigation purposes; ii) They will not attempt to interefere with investigation and will not commit witness tampering; iii) They will not commit any offence while on bail. Non compliance of any of the conditions said above will entail in cancellation of the bail granted.” 4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the date for surrender was extended later, and B.A.No. 9597 OF 2011 3 that order was complied with, and the petitioners were released on executing bond for Rs.15,000/-. 5. Subsequently, the wife of the first accused died. The police is harassing the petitioners on the ground that Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code also will be included in the case and they would be arrested. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Kollam has stated to the petitioners that they have to pay a very huge amount to the parents of the wife of the first accused. The petitioners are not in a position to comply with the same. The petitioners apprehend that Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code will be included in the case and they will be arrested. Therefore, they have moved this application for anticipatory bail. 6. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the police have got information that the wife of the first accused died due to slow poisoning at the house of the accused. The matter is under investigation. It is also submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that at present they have no B.A.No. 9597 OF 2011 4 intention to arrest the petitioners, and if it becomes necessary for the police to arrest the petitioners, notice under Section 160 of the Code of Criminal Procedure would be given to the petitioners granting them atleast ten days' clear time to appear. Recording the submission made by the learned Public Prosecutor, the Bail Application is closed with liberty to the petitioners to approach this court again, as and when occasion arises. K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE. cms