IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA WEDNESDAY, THE 22ND OCTOBER 2008 / 30TH ASWINA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 6187 of 2008() ----------------------------- CRIME NO. 421/2008 OF THE BEKAL POLICE STATION PETITIONERS (S): ACCUSED NOS. 1 -6: -------------------------------------- 1. ABDHUL BASHEER.P.M., S/O.MOIDEEN KUNHI, AGED 42 YEARS, THOOVAL BEACH ROAD, UDUMA. 2. NABEESA, W/O.MOIDEEN KUNHI, AGED 65 YEARS, THOOVAL BEACH ROAD, UDUMA. 3. NASEERA, W/O.ABDULLAH, THOOVAL BEACH ROAD, UDUMA. 4. ABBAS.P.M., S/O.MOIDEEN KUNHI, AGED 44 YEARS, 'DELI', MELPARAMBA, KALANADU, KASARAGOD. 5. SAKKEENA, W/O.ABBAS, 'DELI', MELPARAMBA, KALANADU, KASARAGOD. 6. HAMZA, S/O.IBRAHIM, KOTTAKKAL, P.O.KAVANADU. BY ADV. SRI.SUNNY MATHEW RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT: --------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, THROUGH THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, BEKAL POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI K.S.SIVAKUMAR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K. HEMA, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - B.A. No. 6187 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 22nd day of October,2008 O R D E R Petition for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under sections 498A read with section 34 IPC. According to the prosecution, first accused is the husband of de facto complainant. He along with his near relatives allegedly harassed de facto complainant, both physically and mentally by demanding more money. At the time of marriage, Rs.5 lakhs and 125 sovereigns of gold ornaments were given and those were taken by the accused. Still demands were made and Rs.2 lakhs were given to the 1st accused in 2004, and again demand was made for Rs.2 lakhs. The harassment continued. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that petitioners are innocent of the allegations made. There are no specific allegations made against petitioners with date and time regarding the alleged ill treatment, demand of dowry, etc. The allegations are vague. Learned counsel for petitioners also submitted that the allegations are inflated by one of the relatives of de facto complainant who is a Dy.S.P. and hence if petitioners are arrested, it is likely that they will be tortured at the police station. Hence petitioners may be granted anticipatory bail., it is submitted. BA 6187/08 -2- 4. Learned Public Prosecutor opposed this petition and submitted that there are clear allegations against 1st petitioner (A1) that he had taken money and gold ornaments given to de facto complainant and demands were made repeatedly and again huge amounts were given and she was ill-treated by him. First petitioner is working abroad and de facto complainant is residing in her parental house because of the ill-treatment. However, as far as petitioners 2 to 6 (A2 to A6) are concerned, learned Public Prosecutor submitted that he has no objection in granting anticipatory bail on conditions. But, it is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail to 1st petitioner, it is submitted. 4. On hearing both sides, I am satisfied that anticipatory bail can be granted to petitioners 2 to 6, but on consideration of the nature of allegations made, it may not be proper to grant anticipatory bail to 1st petitioner. The crime was registered as early as on 26-9-2008 and the petitioner has not been available for investigation so far. There is likelihood of his going back abroad also. Hence, the following order is passed:- (1) Prayer for anticipatory bail by 1st petitioner is rejected. BA 6187/08 -3- (2) 1st petitioner is directed to surrender before the Investigating Officer or the Magistrate Court concerned within seven days from today and co- operate with the investigation. (3) Petitioners 2 to 6 shall surrender before the Magistrate court concerned within seven days from today and they shall be released on bail, on their executing a bond for Rs. 25,000/- each with two solvent sureties each, for the like amount, to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate, on the following conditions:- i) Petitioners shall make themselves available for interrogation by the Investigating Officer as and when directed. ii) Petitioners shall not commit any offence while on bail. This petition is allowed. K.HEMA, JUDGE. mn.