IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Bail Appl..No. 7344 of 2008()
1. SALAHUDEEN, S/O.LATE MUHAMMED ALI,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED THE
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.JOHNSON GOMEZ
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MRS. Justice K.HEMA
Dated :13/02/2009
O R D E R
K. HEMA, J.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
B.A. No. 7344 of 2008
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Dated this the 13th day of February, 2009
O R D E R
Petition for anticipatory bail.
2. The alleged offence is under section 498A IPC.
According to prosecution, petitioner married de facto
complainant on 13-3-2006 and at the time of marriage gold and
money were given but petitioner demanded more money and
gold and started harassing de facto complainant. Physical
assaults were also made by him.
3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that
petitioner’s relatives were also implicated as accused in the
complaint, but their names were deleted from the array of
accused. Offence under section 323 IPC was also included on
the allegation that petitioner’s sister caught hold of de facto
complainant and petitioner had slapped her, etc. and since these
allegations were found to be incorrect, section 323 IPC was
deleted. There is not much of dispute between the parties. The
marriage took place only two years back. A child is also born in
the wed lock. Though de facto complainant initiated proceedings
against petitioner for divorce before the Family Court (vide
Annexre-A), Jama-Ath of both parties intervened and settlement
talk was made. This matter is likely to be settled, but if petitioner
BA 7344/08 -2-
is remanded, chances of settlement may be fizzled out and
hence, in the interest of both parties, anticipatory bail may be
granted, it is submitted.
4. Learned Public Prosecutor conceded that offence
under section 323 IPC was deleted and the names of three other
accused were deleted from the array of accused on finding that
no such incident has happened and they had not committed any
offence.
5. On hearing both sides, considering the submissions
made, I find that on the basis of a complaint filed by de facto
complainant which is partly untrue on major events, it may not
be proper to refuse the prayer for anticipatory bail. Hence, the
following order is passed:-
(1) Petitioner shall surrender before the Magistrate
Court concerned within seven days from today
and shall be released on bail, on his executing
a bond for Rs. 25,000/- with two solvent
sureties each, for the like amount, to the
satisfaction of the learned Magistrate, on the
following conditions:-
i) Petitioner shall make himself available
BA 7344/08 -3-
for interrogation by the Investigating
Officer as and when directed.
ii) Petitioner shall not intimidate or
influence any witness or commit any
offence while on bail .
This petition is allowed.
K.HEMA, JUDGE.
mn.