SEBASTIAN AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM,PIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners herein are accused Nos.1 to 6 in Crime No.264 of 2018 of Alappuzha North Police Station. The 5th petitioner is the son of the 1st petitioner. The 2nd petitioner is a lady, who is residing along with the 1st petitioner and his son. The other petitioners are arrayed as accused alleging that they are the friends of petitioners 1 and 5. The offences alleged are punishable under Sections 143, 147, 149, 323, 324, 294(b), 509 and 354 of the Indian Penal Code. The de facto complainant is the wife of the 1st petitioner. At present, she is residing separately along with her two daughters.

(2.) The prosecution allegation is that when the de facto complainant and her daughters went to the property owned by the 2nd petitioner herein, on 31.01.2018, at about 6.00 p.m., the 5th petitioner questioned the de facto complainant and at that time, the 1st petitioner came there and beat the de facto complainant with a stick and the 2nd petitioner fisted her and beaten the de facto complainant and her daughters, who tried to intervene. Accordingly, Crime No.263/2018 was registered against the petitioners. The 2nd petitioner herein is the de facto complainant in the said crime and the de facto complainant in the instant crime, her brother and daughters are the accused in the said crime. Annexure B is the FIR in the said crime. It is brought out by the petitioners' counsel that the de facto complainant and the 1st petitioner are residing separately. Out of the three children, the son is residing along with the 1st petitioner and two daughters are residing along with the de facto complainant. It is also brought out that various cases pending between them. M.C.No.81/2009 under the provisions of the Protection of women from Domestic Violence Act was pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Alappuzha. Likewise, C.C.No.211/2013 is pending before the same court, which was initiated by the de facto complainant. The major offence alleged against the petitioners is under Section 354 I.P.C., which is a non-bailable offence.

(3.) The learned Public Prosecutor has seriously opposed the application by stating that the allegations against the petitioners are very serious. In fact, offence under Section 354 I.P.C.is alleged against the 1st petitioner alone. Considering the fact that this is a matrimonial dispute and moreover, there is a counter case, originated on the same day, on the same set of cause of action, I find it is just and proper to grant anticipatory bail, as sought for by the petitioners on the following conditions:-