High Court Kerala High Court

Sam @ Kochumon vs State Of Kerala on 24 July, 2007

Kerala High Court
Sam @ Kochumon vs State Of Kerala on 24 July, 2007
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Bail Appl No. 4389 of 2007()


1. SAM @ KOCHUMON, S/O.GEORGE,
                      ...  Petitioner
2. DANIEL @ MONCHEN, VAZHAKUNNATHU VEEDU,
3. JESSY SAMUEL, VADAKKEL HOUSE,
4. JIMMY, S/O JOHN, MANHUMELKUDIYIL HOUSE,

                        Vs


1. STATE OF KERALA
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.V.K.SUNIL

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT

 Dated :24/07/2007

 O R D E R
                                  R. BASANT, J.

                         - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

                            B.A.No.  4389 of   2007

                         - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

                     Dated this the 24th day of   July, 2007


                                      O R D E R

Application for anticipatory bail. The petitioners are accused

1 to 4 in a crime registered as Crime No.222 of 2007 of

Pazhayannoor Police Station (not Crime No. 224/07 as shown in the

petition). That crime has been registered under Sections 406 and 420

I.P.C. on the basis of a private complaint filed, which was referred to

the police under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. There was an agreement that

the first accused shall marry the defacto complainant. Accused 2 to

4 are the relatives of the first accused. The arrangement for the

marriage had progressed. The marriage had to be postponed on two

occasions. Later the first accused resiled from the promise. The

amount received as also the dresses were returned. The grievance of

the defacto complainant is that the first accused, in collusion with his

relatives, had wilfully retracted from the promise to marry.

Investigation is in progress. The petitioners apprehend imminent

arrest.

B.A.No. 4389 of 2007

2

2. The learned counsel for the petitioners prays, the learned

Prosecutor does not seriously oppose the said prayer and I am satisfied in

the facts and circumstances indicated above, that this is a fit case where

anticipatory bail can be granted to the petitioners, subject to appropriate

conditions. Such conditions can be imposed which shall ensure the

interests of a fair, efficient and expeditious investigation.

3. In the result:

(1) This application is allowed.

(2) The following directions are issued under Section 438 Cr.P.C.

(a) The petitioners shall surrender before the learned Magistrate on

31.7.2007 at 11 a.m. The learned Magistrate shall release the petitioners on

regular bail on condition that the petitioners execute bonds for

Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) each with two solvent

sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate.

(b) The petitioners shall make themselves available for interrogation

before the Investigating Officer between 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. on 1.8.2007

and 2.8.07 and thereafter on all Mondays and Fridays between 10 a.m. and

12 noon for a period of two months and subsequently as and when directed

by the Investigating Officer in writing to do so.

B.A.No. 4389 of 2007

3

(c) If the petitioners do not appear before the learned Magistrate as

directed in clause (1) above, these directions shall lapse on 31.7.07 and the

police shall be at liberty thereafter to arrest the petitioners and deal with

them in accordance with law.

(d) If the petitioners were arrested prior to his surrender on 31.7.2007

as directed in clause (1) above, they shall be released from custody on

their executing bonds for Rs.25,000/- without any surety undertaking to

appear before the learned Magistrate on 31.7.2007.

4. It is submitted that the first accused is not available in India and

cannot comply with these conditions. The benefit of this order can be

availed only by the petitioners, who surrender before the learned Magistrate

as directed.

(R. BASANT)

Judge

tm