IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Bail Appl No. 6419 of 2007()
1. SAJI, AGED 39, S/O.KOSHY,
... Petitioner
2. ANNAMMA, AGED 64, W/O.KOSHY,
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.B.BALRAJ
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
Dated :24/10/2007
O R D E R
R.BASANT, J
------------------------------------
B.A.No.6419 of 2007
-------------------------------------
Dated this the 24th day of October, 2007
ORDER
Application for anticipatory bail. Petitioners are the husband and
mother in law of the defacto complainant. The marriage took place on
22.10.06. Complaint has been lodged on 01.10.07. Matrimonial
cruelty of the culpable variety is alleged against the petitioners. It
was the second marriage of the defacto complainant and the first
marriage of the petitioner. The petitioners are alleged to be guilty of
physical and mental cruelty against the defacto complainant. The
crime was registered on 1.10.07. In the crime it is alleged that on
13.08.07, the 1st petitioner, the husband had beaten the defacto
complainant with a log of wood and had caused a fracture. But
admittedly they had subsequently resumed harmonious cohabitation.
It is later that the present complaint has been filed on 1.10.07.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the
allegations are totally false. The marriage was less than one year old.
There was some strain in the matrimonial tie. Because of such strain,
false allegations are being raised. The petitioners may, in these
circumstances, be granted anticipatory bail, submits the learned
counsel for the petitioners.
3. The learned Public Prosecutor opposes the application.
The learned Public Prosecutor points out that the defacto complainant
B.A.No.6419 of 2007 2
is shown to have suffered a grievous injury in the incident which took
place on 13.08.07, though no prompt complaint was raised before the
authorities. Notwithstanding the fact that no complaint had been filed
and notwithstanding the fact that the spouses had resumed
cohabitation after 13.08.07, the 1st petitioner husband may not be
granted anticipatory bail. So far as the 2nd petitioner mother in law is
concerned, the learned Public Prosecutor raises no objection against
grant of anticipatory bail.
4. I have considered all the relevant inputs. Considering the
totality of facts and circumstances I am of the opinion that this is a fit
case where anticipatory bail can be granted to the petitioners
notwithstanding the allegations raised about the incident that took
place on 13.08.07. What tilts the scales in favour of the petitioners in
my mind is the fact that the parties thought it proper and fit to resume
cohabitation even after the incident that took place on 13.08.07. I
further take note of the fact that arrest and incarceration of the
petitioners in custody is likely to mar the matrimonial tie beyond
repair. Appropriate conditions can of course be imposed.
5. 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 31.10.07. They shall be enlarged on regular bail on their
B.A.No.6419 of 2007 3
executing a bond 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 01.11.07 and 02.11.07 and thereafter between 10 a.m and 12
noon on all Mondays and Fridays for a period of 2 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;
iv) If the petitioners were arrested prior to their surrender on
31.10.07 as directed in clause (1) above, they shall be released from
custody on their executing a bond for Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty
Five thousand only) without any sureties undertaking to appear before
the learned Magistrate on 31.10.07.
(R.BASANT, JUDGE)
rtr/-
B.A.No.6419 of 2007 4