High Court Kerala High Court

Biju K.Mathew vs State Of Kerala Represented By … on 19 September, 2007

Kerala High Court
Biju K.Mathew vs State Of Kerala Represented By … on 19 September, 2007
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Bail Appl No. 5693 of 2007()


1. BIJU K.MATHEW,AGED 27,KANNANKARA VEEDU,
                      ...  Petitioner
2. K.M.PAPPACHAN @ MATHAI THOMAS,
3. ALIAMMA PAPPACHAN,AGED 56,

                        Vs



1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC
                       ...       Respondent

2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,ARANMULA.

                For Petitioner  :SRI.P.HARIDAS

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT

 Dated :19/09/2007

 O R D E R
                            R.BASANT, J
                   = = = = = = = = = = = = =
                        B.A.No. 5693 of 2007
                  = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

             Dated this the 19th day of September, 2007

                               ORDER

Application for anticipatory bail. There are three petitioners.

The learned Public Prosecutor submits that the petitioners 2 and 3

have already been deleted from the array of accused. Their prayer

for anticipatory bail can hence be dismissed as unnecessary.

2. The 1st petitioner is the husband of the de facto

complainant. Marriage took place on 13.7.06. There is strain in the

matrimony. Crime has been registered on the basis of a private

complaint filed by the de facto complainant before the learned

Magistrate and referred by the learned Magistrate to the Police

under Sec.156(3) Cr.P.C. Investigation is in progress. The

petitioner apprehends imminent arrest.

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

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

the petitioner can now be granted anticipatory bail. In coming to

the conclusion, I take note of the fact that the arrest and

incarceration of the petitioners is likely to mar the matrimonial tie

beyond repair. Appropriate conditions can of course be imposed in

B.A.No. 5693 of 2007 2

the interests of a fair, efficient and proper investigation. The

learned Public Prosecutor submits that the de facto complainant has

not suffered any injuries on account of the alleged cruelty.

4. In the result this petition is allowed. The following

directions are issued under Sec.438 Cr.P.C in favour of the 1st

petitioner.

i) Petitioner shall surrender before the learned Magistrate

having jurisdiction on 26.09.2007.

ii) He shall be released 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.

iii) The petitioner shall make himself available for

interrogation before the investigating officer between 10 a.m and 1

p.m on 27.09.07 and 28.09.07 and thereafter on all Mondays and

Fridays between 10 a.m and 12 noon for a period of one month.

Subsequently the petitioner shall so appear as and when directed

by the investigating officer in writing to do so.

(iv) If the 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

B.A.No. 5693 of 2007 3

the petitioner and deal with him in accordance with law, as if these

directions were not issued at all.

(v) If he were arrested prior to 26.09.2007, he shall be

released on bail 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 26.09.07.

(R.BASANT, JUDGE)
sj
/TRUE COPY/

P.A.TO JUDGE