Petitioner is the 1st accused in Crime No.823/2014 of Mannancherry Police Station, Alappuzha District registered for offences under Sections 494, 498A, 109 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The gist of the allegation is that the petitioner herein, who is the husband of the defacto complainant, without getting the marriage between the above said spouses dissolved, had contracted a second marriage with the 2nd accused and that the accused Nos.2 to 4 who are the sister, father and mother of the petitioner herein (A1)/husband had mentally and physically inflicted cruelty on the defacto complainant and demanded dowry etc. Sri.Rajesh Chakyat, learned counsel for the petitioner, would submit that the entire allegations have been falsely foisted by the defacto complainant herein against the petitioner and other accused in this crime. It is submitted that the marriage between the parties was held on 6.4.2009 and they are living separately due to difference of opinion since 16.4.2010 and that the petitioner herein had filed O.P.No.1479/2011 on 3.12.2011 before the Family Court, Alappuzha seeking divorce against the defacto complainant on the ground of cruelty and for non- disclosure of a serious disease etc. Though Annexure-A1 divorce proceedings were initiated by the petitioner as early as on 3.12.2011, the defacto complainant had filed this private criminal complaint presently alleging aforementioned offences only now. It is further pointed out that by Annexure-A2 order dated 10.10.2014 of the Sessions Court concerned has granted bail to the accused Nos.2 to 4, who are the sister, father and mother of the petitioner, but, refused the plea of anticipatory bail to the petitioner mainly on the ground that he has contracted a second marriage during the life time of the defacto complainant. Sri.Rajesh Chakyath, learned counsel for the petitioner, would submit that the offence under Section 494 is bailable one and that even the learned Magistrate has no case in Annexure-2 order that he is prima facie satisfied of the seriousness of the allegations relating to the offence under Section 498A or that the petitioner is likely tamper with the evidence or witnesses in relation to offence under Section 498A. He would further submit that the only non-bailable offence alleged against the petitioner is one under Section 498A.
It is prayed that this Court may allow the plea of pre-arrest bail in this application otherwise his arrest and detention would have a devastating affect on him.
2. Learned Public Prosecutor would submit that in case this Court is inclined to grant the plea of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner, the same should be conditioned with necessary safeguards to protect the bonafide interest of the prosecution.
3. Having considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor and on an evaluation of the totality of the facts and circumstances of this case, this Court is inclined to allow the plea of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner in this case subject to sufficient safeguards so as to protect the bonafide interest of the prosecution. Accordingly, it is ordered that in the event of the petitioner being arrested in connection with Crime No.823/2014 of Mannancherry Police Station, then he shall be released on bail on his executing a bond for ` 35,000/- (Rupees Thirty Five Thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the investigating officer concerned and subject to the following conditions:-
(i) The petitioner shall surrender his passport, if any, before the court below concerned within three days from the execution of the bail bond before the investigating officer concerned and if he is not a passport holder, he shall file affidavit to that effect in the said court. If the petitioner requires his passport in connection with his travel abroad, he is free to approach the court concerned for the release of the same and for necessary permission in that regard. In case if such an application is filed, the court below concerned is free to consider the same on merits and to pass appropriate orders thereon, taking necessary guidance from the principles laid down in the decision of this Court in the case Asok Kumar v. State of Kerala, reported in 2009 (2) KLT 712, notwithstanding the aforementioned conditions imposed by this Court.
(iii) The petitioner shall not involve in any criminal offence of similar or graver nature.
(iv) The petitioner shall co-operate with the investigation and report before the investigating officer as and when required.
(v) The petitioner shall not attempt to influence the witnesses or shall not tamper or tamper evidence in any manner whatsoever.
If the petitioner fails to comply with any of the conditions as ordered above, the bail granted to him are liable to be cancelled.
Accordingly, the bail application stands finally disposed of.
bkn/-
ALEXANDER THOMAS, Judge.