IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Bail Appl..No. 3269 of 2008()
1. BINOY SAMUEL
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.P.VINODKUMAR
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MRS. Justice K.HEMA
Dated :28/05/2008
O R D E R
K.HEMA, J.
-----------------------------------------
B.A.No. 3269 of 2008
&
B.A.No. 3330 of 2008
-----------------------------------------
Dated this the 28th day of May, 2008
O R D E R
These petitions are for anticipatory bail.
2. Petitioner in B.A.No.3269 of 2008 is the first accused and
petitioners in B.A.No.3330 of 2008 are accused 2 and 3 in the same
crime. The first accused and the defacto complainant were married
on 22.10.2007. Thereafter, it is alleged that he ill-treated the
defacto complainant, tortured her and got pregnancy aborted and
she was forced to leave etc. She made a complaint before the
Women’s Commission and also before the Magistrate’s Court on the
same allegations. A crime was registered for offences under
Sections 498(A), 120(A), 120(B), 316 and 341 of Indian Penal Code
against the petitioners and their close relatives.
3. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that petitioner in
BA.3269 of 2008 is suffering from temporal lobe epilepsy from
childhood and the marriage was conducted disclosing this fact. But,
the defacto complainant, it appears, was not aware of this, and
refused to live with the husband, on coming to know about his
BA.3269 & 3330/08 2
ailment. The defacto complainant became pregnant and she was
seeking help of petitioner to abort the pregnancy for which he was
not willing. Thereafter, she left the house and got the pregnancy
aborted. The allegations made by defacto complainant are false and
it is found so by the Women’s Commission, it is submitted. Learned
counsel for petitioners submitted that the parties were referred to
the Family Court by the Women’s Commissioner and no action was
taken against the petitioners, since the Commission was satisfied of
the truth in the matter.
4. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that petitioners may
be directed to appear before the investigating officer for
interrogation and he has no objection in releasing them on bail on
conditions, thereafter.
5. On hearing both sides, I am satisfied that this course can
be adopted and hence, the following orders are passed:
i) Petitioners shall appear before the investigating officer on
4.6.2008 between 10 AM and 5 PM and make themselves available
for interrogation and thereafter they shall be produced before the
Magistrate’s Court concerned, in accordance with law.
ii) The learned Magistrate shall release the petitioners on bail
on their executing bond for Rs.25,000/- each with two solvent
BA.3269 & 3330/08 3
sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the court, on
condition that they shall appear before the investigating officer as
and when directed by him.
The petitions are allowed.
K.HEMA, JUDGE
vgs.