IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Bail Appl No. 5045 of 2007()
1. MARY, AGED 65 YEARS, W/O. OUSEPH,
... Petitioner
2. GEORGE C.G., AGED 33 YEARS, S/O.
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
Dated :21/08/2007
O R D E R
R.BASANT, J
------------------------------------
B.A.No.5045 of 2007
-------------------------------------
Dated this the 21st day of August, 2007
ORDER
Application for anticipatory bail. The petitioners are accused 2
and 1 respectively in a crime registered for offences punishable, inter
alia, under Section 498 A r/w 306 I.P.C. The crux of the allegations
against the petitioners is that they were guilty of matrimonial cruelty
of the culpable variety against the deceased, who is the wife of the 1st
accused/2nd petitioner and the daughter in law of the 1st petitioner/2nd
accused. The crime was initially registered under the caption `woman
missing’. Later it was found that the deceased had jumped into a pond
near the house of the petitioners and had committed suicide.
2. According to the prosecution, the petitioners were guilty of
matrimonial cruelty against the deceased. When the crime was
registered under the caption `woman missing’, the 2nd petitioner was
questioned by the police and there is a categoric statement therein
that the 2nd petitioner husband had assaulted the deceased on that
night compelling her to go away from the house on that night. The
postmortem report also shows indications of physical violence on the
person of the deceased.
B.A.No.5045 of 2007 2
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners prays that the
petitioners may now be granted anticipatory bail. The learned Public
Prosecutor does not raise any objections against the grant of
anticipatory bail to the 1st petitioner/2nd accused, but opposes the
application vehemently in so far as the prayer of the 2nd petitioner/1st
accused is concerned. The case diary has been placed before me for
my perusal. I have perused the case diary. I reckon the stand taken
by the learned Public Prosecutor as an informed and reasonable one.
Sufficient indications to suggest complicity of the 1st accused/2nd
petitioner/husband are definitely available in the case diary. I am not
persuaded to agree that the 2nd petitioner deserves to be granted
anticipatory bail. So far as the 1st petitioner/2nd accused/mother in
law, a woman aged about 65 years is concerned, I am satisfied that
anticipatory bail can be granted to her.
4. In the result, the Bail Application is, allowed in part.
a) The petition in so far as it relates to the 2nd petitioner/1st
accused/husband of the deceased is dismissed. Needless to say that if
the petitioner surrenders before the Investigating Officer or the
learned Magistrate and applies for bail after giving sufficient prior
notice to the Prosecutor in charge of the case, the learned Magistrate
must proceed to pass appropriate orders on merits and expeditiously.
B.A.No.5045 of 2007 3
b) The following directions are issued in favour of the 1st
petitioner/2nd accused/mother in law under Section 438 Cr.P.C.
i) The 1st petitioner shall appear before the learned
Magistrate at 11 a.m on 30.08.2007. She shall be enlarged on regular
bail on his executing 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;
ii) The 1st petitioner shall make herself available for
interrogation before the Investigating Officer between 10 a.m and 3
p.m on 31.08.2007 and 01.09.2007 and thereafter between 10 a.m
and 12 noon on all Mondays and Fridays for a period of two months.
Subsequently the 1st petitioner shall make herself available for
interrogation before the Investigating Officer as and when directed by
the Investigating Officer in writing to do so;
iii) If the 1st petitioner does not appear before the learned
Magistrate as directed in clause (i), directions issued above shall
thereafter stand revoked and the police shall be at liberty to arrest the
petitioner and deal with her in accordance with law as if those
directions were not issued at all;
iv) If the 1st petitioner were arrested prior to her surrender on
30.08.07 as directed in clause (1) above, he shall be released from
B.A.No.5045 of 2007 4
custody on his executing a bond for Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five
thousand only) without any sureties undertaking to appear before the
learned Magistrate on 30.08.07.
(R.BASANT, JUDGE)
rtr/-