IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA FRIDAY, THE 13TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 24TH MAGHA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 8055 of 2008(B) ------------------------------------------ (CR.NO.220/2008 OF KUDIYANMALA POLICE STATION) .................... PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.1 & 2: ------------------------------------------------ 1. JOY PULIKKATHADATHIL, S/O.PAUL, AGED 44 YEARS, PULIKKURUMBA P.O. NADUVIL AMSOM, TALIPARAMBA TALUK KANNUR DISTRICT. 2. SHINY PULIKKATHADATHIL, W/O.JOY, AGED 37 YEARS, PULIKKURUMBA P.O. NADUVIL AMSOM, TALIPARAMBA TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADVS. MR.V.A.SATHEESH, MR.V.T.MADHAVANUNNI. RESPONDENT/ COMPLAINANT: --------------------------------------------- THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, KUDIYANMALA POLICE STATION, KANNUR DT. REP.BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR. K.S. SIVA KUMAR. THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: prv. K. HEMA, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= B.A. No. 8055 of 2008 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this the 13th day of February, 2009 O R D E R Petition for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under sections 341, 323, 324, 354, 452, 294(b) read with section 34 IPC. According to prosecution, pineapple plants were uprooted from the property of de facto complainant by the 1st accused. When she questioned, she was abused by him. The 2nd accused also abused her and wrongfully restrained her. Thereafter, 1st accused committed house trespass into the house of de facto complainant and assaulted her using a stick, etc. 3. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that accused and de facto complainant are close relatives. The 1st accused and de facto complainant's husband are brothers. The 2nd accused is the wife of 1st accused. De facto complainant is residing in the house constructed by 1st accused. There was loan over the property. The 1st accused demanded her to pay instalments, since she was residing there. In respect of this, there was some dispute between the parties and now they have amicably settled the issues and the agreement as Annexure-A3. The parties have decided that the complaint need not be prosecuted. In the above circumstances, anticipatory bail may be BA 8055/09 -2- granted, it is submitted. 4. In the light of the settlement, learned Public Prosecutor submitted that he has no objection in granting anticipatory bail to petitioners. 5. Hence, the following order is passed:- (1) Petitioners shall surrender before the Magistrate Court concerned within seven days from today and they shall be released on bail, on their executing a bond for Rs. 25,000/- each with two solvent sureties each, for the like amount, to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate, on the following conditions:- i) Petitioners shall make himself available for interrogation by the Investigating Officer as and when directed and co- operate with the investigation. ii) Petitioners shall not intimidate or influence any witness or commit any offence while on bail. This petition is allowed. K.HEMA, JUDGE. mn.