Shinu Varghese vs The Sub Inspector on 9 February, 2010

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Bail Appl..No. 150 of 2010()


1. SHINU VARGHESE, AGED 32 YEARS,
                      ...  Petitioner
2. M.V.JOHN, AGED 65 YEARS,
3. MOLLY JOHN, AGED 58 YEARS,

                        Vs



1. THE SUB INSPECTOR, THIRUVALLA POLICE
                       ...       Respondent

2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE

                For Petitioner  :SRI.V.SETHUNATH

                For Respondent  :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.T.SANKARAN

 Dated :09/02/2010

 O R D E R
                       K.T. SANKARAN, J.
                    ---------------------------
                      B.A. No.150 of 2010
                ------------------------------------
             Dated this the 9th day of February, 2010

                            O R D E R

This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438

of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioners are accused

Nos. 1 to 3 in Crime No.1100/2009 of Thiruvalla Police Station,

Pathanamthitta.

2. The offences alleged against the petitioners are under

Section 498 A of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4A of the

Dowry Prohibition Act.

3. When the Bail Application came up for hearing on

25/01/2010, the following order was passed:

“After having heard the learned counsel for the

petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor, I am of

the view that before disposing of the Bail Application,

an opportunity should be given to the petitioners to

appear before the investigating officer. Accordingly,

there will be a direction to the petitioners to appear

before the investigating officer at 9 A.M. on 1.2.2010

and 2.2.2010. The petitioners shall produce a copy of

B.A. No.150 / 2010
2

the order before the investigating officer.

Post on 8/02/2010.

It is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor

that the petitioners will not be arrested until further

orders in connection with Crime No.1100 of 2009 of

Thiruvalla Police Station.”

4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the

petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor that the petitioners

have complied with the direction contained in the order dated

25/01/2010.

5. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the

case, the nature of the offence and other circumstances, I am of

the view that anticipatory bail can be granted to the petitioners.

There will be a direction that in the event of the arrest of the

petitioners, the officer in charge of the police station shall release

them on bail on their executing bond for Rs.10,000/- each with

two solvent sureties for the like amount to the satisfaction of the

officer concerned, subject to the following conditions:

B.A. No.150 / 2010
3

A) The petitioners shall appear before the
investigating officer for interrogation as and
when required;

B) The petitioners shall not try to influence the
prosecution witnesses or tamper with the
evidence.

C) The petitioners shall not commit any offence or
indulge in any prejudicial activity while on bail.

D) In case of breach of any of the conditions
mentioned above, the bail shall be liable to be
cancelled.

The Bail Application is allowed to the extent indicated

above.

K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE

scm