~~~~~~~ The petitioner herein is the first accused in Crime No.916 of 2014 of Tellicherry Police Station in Kannur District for offences under Sections 498A and 406 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The aforementioned crime was registered on the basis of a private complaint filed by the petitioner's wife before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Tellicherry as C.M.P.No.2364/2014. The marriage between the petitioner and the de facto complainant was solemnized on 13.2.2004. The aforementioned crime was registered on 23.6.2014. Apprehending arrest in the aforementioned crime, the petitioner herein has preferred this application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying for grant of anticipatory bail. 2. The gist of the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner and the other accused (petitioner's brother) had committed mental and physical torture towards the de facto complainant demanding more dowry and it is alleged that the accused persons had taken 20 sovereigns of gold ornaments belonging to the de facto complainant and is not permitting her to enter into the matrimonial home and is demanding more gold and money as dowry.
3. The petitioner's counsel would vehemently contend that the petitioner is innocent of these allegations which are triggered mainly on account of the differences of opinion between the petitioner and his spouse and that the version of the de facto complainant is a false story and that during the last several years the petitioner is working in gulf country. The counsel for the petitioner would further submit that the de facto complainant was actually not interested to reside with the petitioner at his house and had quarrelled with him unnecessarily and demanded the petitioner to shift his residence to her house and that it is on account of such differences of opinion the de facto complainant has chosen to set in motion the criminal flops for offence under Section 498A of the IPC etc.
4. Heard Sri. K.V. Anilkumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor, Sri.Dhanesh Mathew Manjooran for the respondent State.
5. In view of the facts and circumstances of this case and in the light of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor, I am inclined to take the view that discretion could be exercised for the grant of anticipatory bail as sought for by the petitioner, subject to sufficient conditions and safeguards. Accordingly, this application is allowed with the directions that in the event of the arrest of the petitioner in connection with Crime No.916/2014 of Tellicherry Police Station, he shall be released on bail on executing a bond for Rs.35,000/- (Rupees Thirty Five Thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer concerned in the aforementioned crime and subject to the following conditions:-
(i) The petitioner shall surrender his passport, if any, before the jurisdictional Magistrate concerned, within three days from his execution of the bail bond. If the petitioner is not the holder of a passport, he shall file an affidavit to that effect in the said court. If the petitioner requires his passport for travel abroad, he is free to approach the concerned court for the release of the same and in case such an application is filed, the trial court or the jurisdictional Magistrate concerned, as the case may be, is free to consider the same on merit and to pass appropriate orders thereon, taking sufficient guidance from the principles laid down by this Court in the case Asok Kumar v. State of Kerala [2009(2) KLT 712], notwithstanding the aforementioned condition imposed by this Court.
(ii) The petitioner shall report before the Investigating Officer in Crime No.916/2014 of Tellicherry Police Station between 10 a.m. and 11 a.m. on every alternate Sundays.
(iii) The petitioner shall not involve in any criminal offence similar or graver in nature.
and iv) The petitioner shall not intimidate or influence the witnesses or interfere with the smooth conduct of the investigation in any manner or tamper or attempt to tamper the evidence in any manner whatsoever.
If the petitioner violates any of the above said conditions, the bail granted to him is liable to be cancelled.
The Bail Application is allowed as above.
Sd/- ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE.
ps/7/10/2014 //True copy// PA to Judge