IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA TUESDAY, THE 21ST OCTOBER 2008 / 29TH ASWINA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 6464 of 2008() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.291/08 OF NILESHWAR POLICE STATION PETITIONER(S): -------------------- 1. MUSTHAFA MOILAKIRIYATH, S/O.MOHAMMAD MUTHIRAKKOL HOUSE, NEAR PALLIKKARA RAILWAY GATE, P.O.NILESHWAR. 2. MUTHIRAKKOL MAMMAD, S/O.ERAMULLAN, MUTHIRAKKOL HOUSE, NEAR PALLIKKARA RAILWAY GATE, P.O.NILESHWAR. 3. SAFIYAMOLAKKARIYATH, D/O.MAMMAD, NAR PALLIKKARA RAILWAY GATE, P.O.NILESHWAR. 4. KUNHAMINA MOILAKARIYATH, D/O.MAMMAD,NEAR PALLIKKARA RAILWAY GATE, P.O.NILESHWAR. 5. RAHSEED MOILAKARIYATH,D/O.MAMMAD, MUTHIRAKKOL HOUSE, NEAR PALLIKKARA RAILWAY GATE, P.O.NILESHWAR. 6. NAZEER MOILAKARIYATH,S/O.MAMMAD, MUTHIRAKKOL HOUSE, NEAR PALLIKKARA RAILWAY GATE, P.O.NILESHWAR. BY ADV. SMT.T.SUDHAMANI RESPONDENT(S): --------------- THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI.M.S.BREEZE THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. ----------------------------------------- B.A.No. 6464 of 2008 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 21st October, 2008 O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offence is under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. According to prosecution, petitioners, who are husband and relatives of the de facto complainant, inflicted cruelty on the de facto complainant, demanding money etc. She was also compelled to act in blue film. 3. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that petitioners are innocent of the allegations made. The de facto complainant was in the habit of leaving the matrimonial house and her husband used to bring her back. The de facto complainant was insisting the first petitioner to reside in her house. A complaint was filed by her alleging violation of provisions of the Domestic Violence Act but no allegation of blue film etc. was made in the said complaint, it is submitted. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that specific allegations are made against first accused, which will amount to cruelty under Section 498A IPC. As far as accused 2 to 6 are concerned, there are only vague allegations and hence, he has no objection in granting anticipatory bail to them. But, anticipatory bail may not be granted to the first accused, it is submitted. The BA.6464/08 2 crime is registered as early as on 27.9.2008 and the petitioners are not available for interrogation, it is submitted. 5. On hearing both sides, on considering the nature of allegations made, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the first petitioner (first accused). But, as far as petitioners 2 to 6 are concerned, anticipatory bail can be granted. Hence, the following order is passed: i) Petitioners 2 to 6 shall surrender before the Magistrate Court concerned and they shall be released on bail on their executing bond for Rs.25,000/- each with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate, on condition that they will co-operate with the investigation and shall not commit any offence while on bail. ii) The prayer for anticipatory bail by the first accused is rejected and he is directed to surrender before the investigating officer within seven days from today and co-operate with the investigation. With this direction, petition is partly allowed. K.HEMA, JUDGE vgs.