High Court Kerala High Court

Saburaj K.M. @ Sabu vs State Of Kerala Through The Sub on 13 July, 2007

Kerala High Court
Saburaj K.M. @ Sabu vs State Of Kerala Through The Sub on 13 July, 2007
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Bail Appl No. 4132 of 2007()


1. SABURAJ K.M. @ SABU, S/O.MATHEW,
                      ...  Petitioner
2. MATHEW KUNNUMPURATH, S/O.JOSEPH,
3. ROSAMMA MATHEW, W/O.MATHEW AGED 55 YEARS

                        Vs



1. STATE OF KERALA THROUGH THE SUB
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.SUNNY MATHEW

                For Respondent  :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT

 Dated :13/07/2007

 O R D E R
                                  R.BASANT, J

                        ------------------------------------

                            B.A.No.4132 of 2007

                        -------------------------------------

                    Dated this the 13th day of July, 2007


                                     ORDER

Application for anticipatory bail. The petitioners face

allegations under Section 498 A I.P.C. They are husband and parents-

in-law of the defacto complainant. Crime has been registered on the

basis of a complaint filed by the defacto complainant before the

police. Investigation is in progress. The petitioners apprehend

imminent arrest.

2. The marriage took place in 2004. The spouses have been

blessed with one male child. Evidently there is strain in the

matrimonial tie. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that

the petitioners are absolutely innocent. Strain in the matrimonial tie

is prompting the defacto complainant to make false, exaggerated and

fanciful allegations against the petitioners.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners prays, the learned

Public Prosecutor does not seriously oppose the said prayer and I am

satisfied that in the facts and circumstances explained above, the

petitioners can be granted anticipatory bail subject, of course, to

appropriate conditions to be imposed in the interests of a fair,

efficient and expeditious investigation. The learned Public Prosecutor

has taken me through the wound certificate dated 21.06.07, which

B.A.No.4132 of 2007 2

shows the injury suffered by the defacto complainant on account of

the incident which allegedly took place on 19.06.07.

4. In the result, the Bail Application is, allowed. The

following directions are issued under Section 438 Cr.P.C.

i) The petitioners shall appear before the learned Magistrate

at 11 a.m on 20.07.2007. They shall be enlarged on regular bail on

their executing bonds for Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five thousand

only) each with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the

satisfaction of the learned Magistrate;

ii) The petitioners shall make themselves available for

interrogation before the Investigating Officer between 10 a.m and 3

p.m on 21.07.2007 and 22.07.2007 and thereafter between 10 a.m

and 12 p.m on all Mondays and Fridays for a period of two months.

Subsequently the petitioners shall make themselves available for

interrogation before the Investigating Officer as and when directed by

the Investigating Officer in writing to do so;

iii) If the petitioners do 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 petitioners and deal with them in accordance with law as if those

directions were not issued at all;

B.A.No.4132 of 2007 3

iv) If the petitioners were arrested prior to their surrender on

20.07.07 as directed in clause (1) above, they shall be released on bail

on their executing bonds for Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five

thousand only) each without any sureties undertaking to appear

before the learned Magistrate on 20.07.07.

(R.BASANT, JUDGE)

rtr/-