IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR
THURSDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2020 / 8TH PHALGUNA, 1941
Bail Appl..No.9571 OF 2019
CRIME NO.495/2019 OF BEYPORE POLICE STATION, KOZHIKODE
PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS.2 3:
1 SELVARAJ
AGED 59 YEARS
S/O. LATE SIVARAJA KURUP, PUNNOOR KALARICKAL HOUSE,
USHUS, CHENGALOOR P O, PUTHUKKAD, THRISSUR DISTRICT.
2 ANASWAR RAJ
AGED 21 YEARS
S/O. SELVARAJ, PUNNOOR KALARICKAL HOUSE, USHUS,
CHENGALOOR P O, PUTHUKKAD, THRISSUR DISTRICT.
BY ADV. SRI.NIREESH MATHEW
RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM KOCHI-682031.
ADDL.R ANJANA ANAND
2 AGED 27 YEARS, POURNAMI
NEAR G.H.S.S., BEYPORE,
P.O.BEYPORE, KOZHIKODE
ADDL. R2 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DT.27.02.2020 IN
CRL.M.A.NO.1 OF 2020
ADDL.R2 BY ADV. K.A.SALIL NARAYANAN
R1 BY SRI. AMJAD ALI, SR. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
27.02.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Bail Appl..No.9571 OF 2019
2
Bail Application No.9571 of 2019
———————————————-
ORDER
This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section
438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
2. The petitioners are accused Nos.2 and 3 in Crime
No.495 of 2019 of Beypore Police Station registered for offences
punishable under Sections 498A, 354A(1)(i) read with Section 34
of the Indian Penal Code. The de facto complainant is the wife of
the first accused. Accused Nos.2 and 3 are the father and brother
of the first accused. The accusation in the case in essence is that
the petitioners and the first accused subjected the de facto
complainant to cruelty while they were residing together.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the
learned Public Prosecutor as also the learned counsel for the de
facto complainant.
4. The learned counsel for the de facto complainant
submitted that the allegations against the accused are grave in
nature and this is therefore not a fit case for anticipatory bail.
5. In the light of the submission made by the
learned counsel for the de facto complainant, I have perused the
Bail Appl..No.9571 OF 2019
3
complaint of the de facto complainant, on the basis of which the
crime was registered. On an overall appreciation of the materials
on record, I am of the view that in the light of the decision of the
Apex Court in Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of
Maharashtra, AIR 2011 SC 312, the petitioners are entitled to
anticipatory bail on the following conditions:
i) The petitioners shall make themselves available for
interrogation before the Investigating Officer within ten
days from today. They shall also make themselves
available for interrogation before the Investigating
Officer as and when directed by the Investigating
Officer in writing to do so;
ii) If the petitioners are arrested prior to, or after their
appearance before the Investigating Officer in terms of
this order, they shall be released from custody on
execution of bond for Rs.25,000/- each with two
sureties each for the like sum.
iii) The petitioners shall not influence or intimidate the
prosecution witnesses nor shall they attempt to tamper
with the evidence of the prosecution.
Bail Appl..No.9571 OF 2019
4
iv) The petitioners shall not involve in any other
offence while on bail.
Sd/-
P.B.SURESH KUMAR, JUDGE.
DK
