IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Bail Appl No. 1238 of 2008()
1. M.V.IBRAHIM, AGED 29 YEARS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.SANTHARAM.P
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
Dated :11/04/2008
O R D E R
R. BASANT, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
B.A.Nos. 1238 & 1570 of 2008
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 11th day of April, 2008
O R D E R
These applications are for anticipatory bail. The common
petitioner apprehends arrest in two crimes. The first of these
crimes is registered on the complaint of his mother-in-law and
the second of those is registered at the instance of his wife. In
the first, the allegation is that he had misappropriated and
committed breach of trust in respect of a vehicle belonging to the
mother-in-law. He had taken away the vehicle and is refusing to
return it. That is the gist of the allegation in the first case. In the
second crime the allegation is that the petitioner is guilty of
matrimonial cruelty of the culpable variety against his wife.
Both crimes are registered on the basis of the complaints filed
before the learned Magistrate and referred by the learned
Magistrate to the police under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.
Investigation is in progress. The petitioner apprehends imminent
arrest.
B.A.Nos. 1238 & 1570 of 2008
2
2. When these petitions came up for hearing, after hearing the
parties and taking note of the fact that the marriage had taken place
only on 17.6.2007, this Court wanted the parties to explore the
possibility of a harmonious settlement. The parties were referred to the
Lok Adalath. It is now submitted that though the parties have not been
able to settle their disputes totally, a divorce has been pronounced by
the husband and the marital tie does not today exist. Report of the Lok
Adalath also indicates so. The Lok Adalath has observed that the
parties can be left to work out the rights available to them under law,
but the divorce was pronounced by the husband and accepted by the
wife.
3. The learned Prosecutor does not, in these circumstances,
oppose the application for anticipatory bail. I am satisfied that the
petitioner can be granted anticipatory bail, subject to appropriate
conditions.
4. In the result:
(1) These applications are allowed.
(2) The following directions are issued under Section 438
Cr.P.C.
B.A.Nos. 1238 & 1570 of 2008
3
(a) The petitioner shall surrender before the learned Magistrate
on 21.4.2008 at 11 a.m. The learned Magistrate shall release the
petitioner on regular bail on condition that he executes a bond for
Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) with two solvent
sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the learned
Magistrate.
(b) The petitioner shall surrender his passport before the learned
Magistrate. It is submitted that the same has already been surrendered
before the police. The police shall produce the same before the
learned Magistrate forthwith.
(c) The petitioner shall make himself available for interrogation
before the Investigating Officer between 10 a.m. and 5 p.m. on
22.4.2008 and 23.4.2008. During this period, the investigators shall
be at liberty to interrogate the petitioner in custody and take all
necessary steps in connection with the investigation. Thereafter he
shall appear before the Investigating Officer on all Mondays and
Fridays between 10 a.m. and 12 noon for a period of two months and
subsequently as and when directed by the Investigating Officer in
writing to do so.
B.A.Nos. 1238 & 1570 of 2008
4
(d) If the petitioner does not appear before the learned
Magistrate as directed in clause (1) above, these directions shall lapse
on 21.4.08 and the police shall be at liberty thereafter to arrest the
petitioner and deal with him in accordance with law.
(e) If the petitioner were arrested prior to his surrender on
21.4.2008 as directed in clause (1) above, he shall be released on
bail on his executing a bond for Rs.25,000/- without any surety
undertaking to appear before the learned Magistrate on 21.4.2008.
(R. BASANT)
Judge
tm
B.A.Nos. 1238 & 1570 of 2008
5
R. BASANT, J.
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
B.A.Nos. 1238 & 1570 of 2008
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
Dated this the 12th day of March, 2008
O R D E R
The defacto complainant, the wife of the petitioner herein, has
filed an application for impleadment. Formal impleadment is not
necessary. The counsel for the defacto complainant can be heard
while considering the application for bail.
2. In the course of discussions at the Bar,
the counsel for the petitioner as well as the counsel for the defacto
complainant agree that an attempt can be made to settle the disputes at
the Lok Adalath. Both parties are directed to appear before this Court
on 18.3.2008. After they appear before this Court, the matter shall be
referred to the Adalath. The learned Prosecutor undertakes that the
petitioner shall not be arrested in both the crimes until further orders.
B.A.Nos. 1238 & 1570 of 2008
6
(R. BASANT)
Judge
tm