IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Bail Appl No. 1759 of 2008()
1. MR. GIRISH. M.K., S/O.KUNHAN
... Petitioner
2. MR. VALLI, W/O.KUNHAN, AGED 48 YEARS
3. MS. GEETHA, D/O.KUNHAN, AGED 17 YEARS
Vs
1. THE STATE OF KERALA
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI. C.VIVEK
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
Dated :26/03/2008
O R D E R
R. BASANT, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
B.A.No. 1759 of 2008
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 26th day of March, 2008
O R D E R
Application for anticipatory bail. The petitioners face
allegations in a crime registered under Section 498A I.P.C. The
first petitioner is the husband, second petitioner is the mother-in-
law and the third petitioners is the sister-in-law of the defacto
complainant. The marriage between the first accused and the
defacto complainant took place on 22.4.2007. The young bride
was allegedly subjected to matrimonial cruelty of the culpable
variety at the matrimonial home. Unable to stand such cruelty,
the defacto complainant allegedly attempted to commit suicide
by self immolation on 2.3.2008. She suffered 35% burns. The
F.I. Statement was lodged by the victim. Specific allegations
were raised against all the three accused persons.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the
petitioners are absolutely innocent. They are not guilty of any
matrimonial cruelty. The disappointment and frustration of the
B.A.No. 1759 of 2008
2
newly wedded wife had led her to commit suicide. The petitioners are
not responsible for the conduct of the victim. At any rate, the third
petitioner is a young girl, she having been born only on 28.5.1991. All
the petitioners may, in these circumstances, be granted anticipatory
bail, it is prayed.
3. The learned Prosecutor, after perusing the relevant documents
made available to court to prove that the date of birth of the third
petitioner is 28.5.1991, submits that the State does not want to oppose
the application for anticipatory bail of the third petitioner, but in so far
as petitioners 1 and 2 are concerned, the application is opposed. He
points out that there are specific allegations of matrimonial cruelty of
the culpable variety against petitioners 1 and 2. The totality of
circumstances must clearly show that the allegations are justified and at
any rate there are no circumstances justifying or warranting the
invocation of the discretion under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in favour of
petitioners 1 and 2.
4. Having considered all the relevant inputs, I am satisfied that
directions under Section 438 Cr.P.C. can be issued in favour of the
third petitioner. Appropriate conditions can of course be imposed.
B.A.No. 1759 of 2008
3
5. In the result:
(1) These applications are allowed in part.
(2) The petition in so far as it relates to the petitioners 1 and 2
is dismissed. I may however hasten to observe that if the petitioners
appear before the Investigating Officer or the learned Magistrate and
apply for bail after giving sufficient prior notice to the Prosecutor
in charge of the case, the learned Magistrate must proceed to pass
orders on merits, in accordance with law and expeditiously.
(3) The following directions are issued under Section 438
Cr.P.C. in favour of the third petitioner.
(a) The third petitioner shall appear before the Investigating
Officer at 11 a.m. On 2.4.2008.
(b) If the third petitioner were arrested by the Investigating
Officer, she shall be released on condition that she 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.
(c) She shall make herself available for interrogation before the
Investigating Officer as and when directed by the Investigating Officer
B.A.No. 1759 of 2008
4
in writing to do so.
(d) If the third petitioner does not appear before the learned
Magistrate as directed in clause (a) above, these directions shall lapse
and the police shall be at liberty thereafter to arrest the third petitioner
and deal with her in accordance with law.
(R. BASANT)
Judge
tm