Petitioner is the sole accused in Crime No.395/2014 of Kalladikode Police Station, Palakkad District registered for the offences punishable under Sections 498(A) and 494 IPC. Crime has been registered against the petitioner at the instance of the defacto complainant herein who is said to be petitioner's wife in the 2nd marriage. Petitioner is now aged 62 years and he would submit that the allegations are made only to falsely implicate the petitioner. He would submit that he had a previous marriage and he lawfully obtained a divorce and instituted second marriage with the defacto complainant and that therefore offence alleged under Section 494 is absolutely not maintainable. There is a series of litigations between the petitioner and defacto complainant as evidenced by Annexure-1 which is an original petition filed for realisation of money, gold and articles at the instance of the petitioner and Annexure-2 which is an original petition filed at the instance of the petitioner for dissolution of marriage with the defacto complainant and Annexure-3 which is an original petition filed by the defacto complainant herein for restitution for conjugal rights. Sri.K.Shaj, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would further submit that two more litigations have been initiated by the defacto complainant against the petitioner (husband), arising out of matrimonial disputes. It is only after the petitioner has initiated the aforementioned litigations that the wife has sought for implicating the petitioner in the crime in order to harass the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is now aged 62 years and is now working in a Gulf country and he would come to India within two months and then surrender his passport before the jurisdictional Magistrate and seek release of the same in accordance with law.
2. The learned Public Prosecutor would submit that the investigation is almost complete. He would also fairly submit that offence alleged under Section 494 of the IPC is a bailable offence. In the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case and having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor, I am inclined to order grant of anticipatory bail. In this view of the matter, it is ordered that in the event of the petitioner being arrested, he shall be released on bail on his executing a bond for ` 35,000/- (Rupees Thirtyfive Thousand only) before the investigating officer and on furnishing two solvant sureties each for the like amount to the satisfaction of the investigating officer and subject to the following conditions:-
(i) The petitioner shall surrender his passport within a period of two months before the jurisdictional Magistrate. If the petitioner requires his passport in connection with his travel abroad, then 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 trial court or the jurisdictional Magistrate concerned, as the case may be, 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 condition 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 influence the witnesses or shall not tamper or attempt to 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 is liable to be cancelled.
bkn/-
ALEXANDER THOMAS, Judge.