Petitioners are accused Nos.1 to 3 in Crime No.1381/2014 of Puthencruze Police Station registered for the offences alleged under Sections 498(A), 406 & 34 IPC. The 1st petitioner is the husband of the defacto complainant and 2nd petitioner is the father of the 1st Petitioner and 3rd petitioner is the mother of the 1st petitioner. The gist of the prosecution case is that after the marriage between the 1st petitioner and defacto complainant she was residing in the house of the petitioners who have misappropriated her gold ornaments given by her parents and that it is further alleged that from 19.4.2012 to 7.7.2014, petitioners harassed and manhandled the defacto complainant and thereby committed the above offences. Sri.M.R.Sasith Panicker, learned counsel for the petitioners, would submit that the entire allegations are falsely foisted against the petitioners due to difference of opinion in the matrimonial relationship between the spouses and that on 7.7.2014, the day on which the defacto complainant is said to have manhandled the 2nd petitioner and that the 2nd petitioner was admitted to the General Hospital, Muvattupuzha and that the defacto complainant had not returned back to the petitioners' house after giving birth to child whereupon the 1st petitioner had issued lawyer notice to the defacto complainant directing her to return back to the petitioners' house. Later, she returned back to the petitioners' house but, behaved totally strange to the petitioners and threatened that she will put the petitioners in jail etc. it is averred. Learned counsel for the petitioner would urge that this Court may grant the plea of pre-arrest bail to the petitioners in this case with any stringent condition as may be necessary in the facts and circumstances.
2. The learned Public Prosecutor would submit that the investigation is not complete and 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 so as to protect the bonafide interest of the prosecution.
3. After having considered the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Public Prosecutor and on an evaluation of the facts and circumstances, this Court is inclined to allow the plea of pre- arrest bail to the petitioners, subject to stringent conditions. Accordingly, it is ordered that in the event of the petitioners being arrested in connection with Crime No.1381/2014, they shall be released on bail on their executing a bond for ` 35,000/- (Rupees Thirtyfive Thousand only) each with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the investigating officer concerned in the aforementioned crime. This order will be subject to the following conditions:-
i) The petitioners shall surrender their passport, if any, before the jurisdictional Magistrate concerned within three days from execution of the bail bond before the investigating officer and if either of them are not holders of passports, then they shall file affidavit to that effect in the said court. If the petitioners require their passport in connection with their travel abroad, then they are 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.
(ii) The petitioners shall not involve in any criminal offence of similar nature.
(iii) The petitioners shall co-operate with the investigation and report before the investigating officer as and when required.
(iv) The petitioners shall not influence the witnesses or shall not tamper or attempt to tamper evidence in any manner whatsoever.
(v) Petitioners herein, particularly the 1st petitioner, shall not in any way go near the vicinity of the place where the defacto complainant is residing or to meet her except for the purpose of any mediation that may be called for under the auspicious of any court related organisations.
(vi) The investigating officer shall, for the next four months, ascertain on a fortnightly basis from the defacto complainant whether she is facing any threatening or disturbing action committed by the 1st petitioner and on such intimation, the investigating officer shall ascertain its correctness and if he is convinced of its correctness, will file appropriate report in that regard and application for cancellation of bail before this Court.
If the petitioners fail to comply with any of the conditions as ordered above, the bail granted to them are liable to be cancelled.
The bail application stands finally disposed of.
bkn/-
ALEXANDER THOMAS, Judge.