IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Bail Appl..No. 2932 of 2009()
1. K.I. PAREED, AGED 67 YEARS,
... Petitioner
2. KUNJU BEEVI PAREED, AGED 60 YEARS,
3. K.P. SHAJITHA, AGED 40 YEARS,
4. K.K. ANSAR, AGED 43 YEARS,
5. K.P. SHANAVAS, AGED 38 YEARS,
6. ANEEZA SHANAVAS, AGED 35 YEARS,
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.P.K.IBRAHIM
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.T.SANKARAN
Dated :05/06/2009
O R D E R
K.T.SANKARAN, J.
-----------------------------------------
B.A.No. 2932 of 2009
-----------------------------------------
Dated this the 5th June, 2009
O R D E R
This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section
438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioners are
accused 2 to 7 in Crime No.755/09 of Kalamassery Police
Station.
2. The offences alleged against the petitioners are under
Sections 409, 498A and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and
Sections 2 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
3. The marriage between the de facto complainant and
the first accused took place on 4.9.2005. I have perused a copy
of the complaint which was made available to me by the
learned counsel appearing for the de facto complainant. There
are allegations of demand for dowry in the years 2005 and
2006. According to the petitioners, the first accused (husband)
and the de facto complainant are residing separately since
2007. The first accused is employed abroad. There is no case
BA.2932/09 2
for anybody that the de facto complainant was residing with
the petitioners at any time after 2007. The first petitioner is
the father-in-law, second petitioner is the mother-in-law, third
petitioner is the sister-in-law and the fourth petitioner is the
husband of the sister-in-law of the de facto complainant. Fifth
petitioner is the brother-in-law of the de facto complainant and
6th petitioner is the wife of the 5th petitioner. The husband
(first accused) is still employed abroad. He has pronounced
Thalaq and it was intimated the de facto complainant.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that
the petitioners apprehend arrest and humiliation and
harassment. He pointed out that the father of the de facto
complainant is a retired Colonel and the complaint was filed
before the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Kochi, which was
forwarded to the Kalamassery Police Station and the crime
was registered.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the de facto
complainant submitted that there are lot of contradictions in
the statement of facts in the bail application and the
BA.2932/09 3
statements in the letter intimating Thalaq and the two stories
will not stand together. I do not think that it is necessary to
consider the disputed questions of facts for the purpose of
deciding this application for anticipatory bail.
6. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of
the case, the nature of the offences and other circumstances, I
am of the view that anticipatory bail can be granted to the
petitioners. There will be a direction that in the event of the
arrest of the petitioners, the officer in charge of the police
station shall release them on bail for a period of one month on
their executing bond for Rs.50,000/- each with two solvent
sureties for the like amount to the satisfaction of the officer
concerned, subject to the following conditions:
A) Petitioner No.5 shall report before the
investigating officer between 9 AM and 11
AM on all Mondays, till the final report is
filed or until further orders;
B) The petitioners shall appear before the
investigating officer for interrogation as
and when required;
BA.2932/09 4
C) The petitioners shall not try to influence the
prosecution witnesses or tamper with the
evidence;
D) The petitioners shall not commit any offence
or indulge in any prejudicial activity while
on bail.
E) On the expiry of the period mentioned
above, the petitioners shall surrender
before the Magistrate concerned and seek
regular bail.
F) In case of breach of any of the conditions
mentioned above, the bail shall be liable to
be cancelled.
The Bail Application is allowed as above.
K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE
vgs.