IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN FRIDAY, THE 16TH APRIL 2010 / 26TH CHAITHRA 1932 Bail Appl..No. 2186 of 2010() ------------------------------------------ (CRIME NO.424 OF 2010 OF NEYYATTINKARA POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM) PETITIONERS/ACCUSED: --------------------------------------- 1. SHYNEKUMAR, YESODA BHAVAN, MEKKAVILAKAM, STUDIO ROAD, IN ESTATE P.O., TRIVANDRUM. 2. C.VIJAYAN, CHELLAM COTTAGE, NILAMOODU, CHERIYAKOLLA P.O. BY ADVS. SRI.S.M.PREM, SMT.K.P.SANTHI, SRI.P.K.NIJOY, SMT.NISHA G.THARAMAL. RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT: ----------------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. K.J.MOHAMMED ANSAR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/04/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss V.K.MOHANAN, J. ------------------------------- Bail Application No.2186 of 2010 ------------------------------- Dated this the 16th day of April, 2010. O R D E R This is an application filed u/s.438 of Cr.P.C. by accused Nos.1 and 2 in Crime No.424/2010 of Neyyattinkara Police Station. 2. The allegation against the accused is that the 1st accused/1st petitioner agreed to marry the daughter of the defacto complainant and obtained a gold bracelet weighing 2 sovereigns and Rs.501/-. But the marriage was not taken place and the accused did not return the bracelet and the money to the defacto complainant. It is under the above factual background, apprehending the arrest the petitioners approached this court by filing this petition for anticipatory bail. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned Public Prosecutor. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the 2nd petitioner who is the 2nd accused is a government employee and thus if he is arrested, it will adversely affect his Bail Application No.2186 of 2010 2 future career. It is also pointed out by the learned counsel that no criminal liability will lie against the petitioners even though it is admitted-not conceded-that they have withdrawn from the marriage proposal. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application pointing out that the gold bracelet and money has to be recovered from the accused and therefore no pre-arrest bail can be granted. 5. On a careful consideration of the facts and circumstances involved in the case, it can be seen that even according to the defacto complainant and the respondent it is the 1st accused who agreed to marry the daughter of the defacto complainant and obtained the gold bracelet weighing 2 sovereigns and Rs.501/-. If that be so, it is for the 1st petitioner/1st accused to return the articles allegedly obtained by him at the time of agreeing for the marriage. But he has not done it. If the allegation is true it can not be held for a moment that no criminal liability will be attracted against him. Therefore the 1st petitioner/1st accused is not entitled to get pre-arrest bail and therefore his prayer to that effect is Bail Application No.2186 of 2010 3 liable to be rejected. 6. Whereas, the 2nd petitioner/2nd accused accompanied the 1st accused, as he being the brother-in-law of the 1st accused and it is also beyond dispute that the 2nd accused/2nd petitioner is a government employee. As the prosecution has no case that the 2nd petitioner/2nd accused had obtained any article from the defacto complainant. Therefore considering the facts that the 2nd petitioner is a government employee and in the absence of any overt act against him, the prayer for anticipatory bail can be allowed in favour of the 2nd petitioner. In the result, this petition is allowed in favour of the 2nd petitioner, with a direction to the Station House Officer, Neyyattinkara Police Station that in the event of the arrest of the 2nd petitioner connected with the crime No.424/2010, he shall be released on bail, on his executing a Bond for Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like amount to the satisfaction of the Station House Officer, Neyyattinkara Police Station and subject to the following Bail Application No.2186 of 2010 4 conditions: 1. The petitioner shall report before the Investigating Officer between 9 a.m. and 11 a.m. on all alternate Sundays. 2. The petitioner shall make himself available for interrogation as and when required by the Investigating Officer. 3. The petitioner shall not influence or intimidate the prosecution witnesses nor shall he attempt to tamper with the evidence for the prosecution. 4. The petitioner shall not commit any offence while on bail. If the 2nd petitioner commits breach of any of the above conditions, the bail granted to him shall be liable to be cancelled. As I have already found that the 1st petitioner is not entitled to get a pre-arrest bail, his prayer for the same is rejected and as far as the 1st petitioner is concerned, this petition is stand dismissed. V.K.MOHANAN, Judge. ami/