IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA TUESDAY, THE 29TH JULY 2008 / 7TH SRAVANA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 4631 of 2008(B) ------------------------------------- CRIME NO.721/2008 OF KOLLAM EAST POLICE STATION PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS.1 AND 2 : ------------------------------------------------ 1. MRS.PRAVEENA P.V., W/O.JYOTHIR NIVAS, ADVOCATE, MULAMOOTTIL HOUSE, KERALAPURAM, VELLIMON P.O., PORINAD VILLAGE. 2. JYOTHIR NIVAS,S/O.BHASKARAN NAIR, --DO-. BY ADV. SRI.B.RAMAN PILLAI SRI.R.ANIL SRI.ANIL K.MOHAMMED SRI.SUJESH MENON V.B. SRI.JOSEPH P.ALEX RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT : ------------------------------------ STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.K.S.SIVAKUMAR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. -------------------------------------- Bail Application No.4631 of 2008 --------------------------------------- Dated this the 29th day of July, 2008 O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. According to the prosecution, the petitioners who are husband and wife allegedly procured Rs.20,000/- from the defacto complainant, persuading her by misrepresentations that the amount is required to be given to the DYSP as bribe, in connection with the complaint filed by her on 3.6.2008. But, no fruitful results were obtained in respect of the complaint and thereby, the petitioners have allegedly cheated the defacto complainant. 3. According to learned counsel for the petitioners, this case is a history. First petitioner is a lawyer practicing in Thiruvananthapuram Bar and second petitioner is her husband who is a prominent Congress leader and the President of the Perinad Mandalam Congress Committee and also, the opposition leader of Perinad Grama Panchayath committee and a member of BA No.4631/08 2 such committee. The defacto complainant had approached the second petitioner in connection with the allegation that her daughter Chithra was taken away and impregnated by one Sajith who is the son of a prominent CPI(M) leader. So, a complaint was filed by the defacto complainant before the police since the said Sajith had not married the girl. Pursuant to this, he gave notice for registration of marriage under the Special Marriage Act on 7.3.2008. The couple lived in the defacto complainant's house. But, thereafter, he did not pursue with the marriage registration under compulsion from his mother and when the girl's mother insisted for some documents relating to marriage, Sajith left the house. 4. So, a complaint was again lodged by the defacto complainant before the police. But, when the police called Sajith and made enquires in connection with the complaint, he showed some photographs which revealed that the parties were married. Therefore, the complaint was not proceeded with by the police. Thereafter, the girl was again abandoned and a complaint was filed by the defacto complainant before the DYSP on 3.6.2008. BA No.4631/08 3 But, the said DYSP who was an active DYFI worker and SFI leader during his college days, was also on enmical terms with the petitioner due to political differences. So, he did not take any action. Hence, the defacto complainant was taken to a lawyer at Kollam by the second petitioner. A complaint was also got prepared and Rs.2,000/- was paid to the lawyer. But, instead at the instance of the DYSP, under influence of Sajith's mother who is an active politician, a complaint was lodged against the petitioners making false allegations with a view to harass them out of the political vengeance, it is submitted. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that a reading of the complaint itself would show that the allegations are highly improbable. The defacto complainant belongs to a poor family and she is dhobi by profession. She is a member of the scheduled caste and she has no source of income. But, as per the allegations in the complaint, the day on which the defacto complainant was taken to the DYSP for lodging the complaint, the petitioners went to the DYSP's office by keeping the defacto complainant waiting outside the door and they returned to the BA No.4631/08 4 defacto complainant and told her that DYSP is demanding some money as bribe. Then the defacto complainant handed over Rs.10,000/- to the first petitioner. He later demanded the balance also. Then, the defacto complainant gave Rs.2,000/- on one occasion and thereafter, Rs.8,000/-. Thus, altogether Rs.20,000/- was given to the petitioners within a short span of time. It is argued that it is highly unbelievable that defacto complainant had with her, Rs.10,000/- and that she had readily handed over the same to the first petitioner for giving it as bribe, it is submitted. It is also unbelievable that thereafter, again she gave Rs.10,000/- without having a second thought. 6. Learned public prosecutor submitted that in the investigation so far conducted, no sufficient material is collected against the petitioners. The investigation is going on. He also submitted that the allegations made against the DYSP are baseless. 7. On hearing both sides, especially the submissions made on behalf of the learned counsel for the petitioners, I find that unless anticipatory bail is granted, the petitioners will be put BA No.4631/08 5 to harassment and unnecessary detention and on the facts of the this case, such pre-trial detention has to be prevented. Hence, the following order is passed: Petitioners shall be released on bail in the event of their arrest on their executing bond for Rs.25,000/- each with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the arresting officer on condition that they will co-operate with the investigation and appear before the Investigating Officer as and when directed. The petition is allowed. K.HEMA, JUDGE csl