IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Bail Appl No. 3928 of 2007()
1. SAIDALVI, S/O MOIDEEN KUTTY,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
... Respondent
2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
For Petitioner :SRI.G.HARIHARAN
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
Dated :29/06/2007
O R D E R
R.BASANT, J.
----------------------
B.A.No.3928 of 2007
----------------------------------------
Dated this the 29th day of June 2007
O R D E R
Application for anticipatory bail. The petitioner is the father-in-
law of the defacto complainant. The defacto complainant had raised
allegations against her husband and relatives in a complaint filed
before the police. Crime has been registered under Sections 498A
and 354 read with 34 I.P.C. Investigation is in progress. The
petitioner, the second accused, apprehends arrest at any moment.
2. The allegations raised against the father-in-law – the
petitioner herein, are indeed vague. If true, the allegation show great
depravity of the mind. However, the learned counsel for the
petitioner submits that a court may not lightly swallow all the
allegations raised by a strained wife who is too keen to invent reasons
to justify her separate residence from her husband and matrimonial
home. At any rate, the allegations raised are such which can be
raised by anyone with vexatious intent. The learned counsel for the
petitioner further submits that, at any rate, it is not necessary at all to
insist on arrest and incarceration of the petitioner for a proper
investigation of the crime, considering the nature of the allegations
raised.
B.A.No.3928/07 2
3. The learned Public Prosecutor opposes the application.
The learned Public Prosecutor reiterates that the allegations are
grave and a serious view is liable to be taken against such allegations.
4. Having rendered my anxious consideration to all the
relevant inputs, I am certainly of the opinion that this is a fit case
where directions under Section 438 Cr.P.C can be issued in favour of
the petitioner. In coming to this conclusion, I take note of the
strained relationship of the spouses and the fact that the defacto
complainant is certainly in need of an explanation for her refusal to
stay at the matrimonial home. I also take note of the relevant
submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that for a
proper investigation into the allegations, considering the nature of the
allegations, arrest and incarceration of the petitioner is not necessary.
5. In the result, this petition is allowed. Following directions
are issued under Section 438 Cr.P.C:
i) Petitioner shall surrender before the learned Magistrate
having jurisdiction at 11 a.m on 07/07/2007.
ii) He shall be released on regular bail on condition that he
executes bond for Rs.50,000/-(Rupees fifty thousand only) with two
solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the learned
Magistrate.
B.A.No.3928/07 3
iii) The petitioner shall make himself available for
interrogation before the investigating officer between 10 a.m and 4
p.m on 08/07/2007, 09/07/2007 and 10/07/07 and thereafter on all
Mondays and Fridays between 10 a.m and 12 noon for a period of
three months and thereafter 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
the petitioner and deal with them in accordance with law, as if these
directions were not issued at all.
(v) If he was arrested prior to 07/07/2007, he shall be
released on bail on his executing a bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty
thousand only) without any sureties, undertaking to appear before the
learned Magistrate on 07/07/2007.
(R.BASANT, JUDGE)
jsr
// True Copy// PA to Judge
B.A.No.3928/07 4
B.A.No.3928/07 5
R.BASANT, J.
CRL.M.CNo.
ORDER
21ST DAY OF MAY2007