IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA FRIDAY, THE 6TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 17TH MAGHA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 7270 of 2008(A) ------------------------------------- CRIME NO.281/2008 OF KOZHIKODE MUKKAM POLICE STATION PETITIONER/2ND ACCUSED : ----------------------------------- JUMAILATH, D/O. FATHIMA BEEVI, SAMATHWAM NAGAR - 47, THATTAMALA.P.O, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.B.MOHANLAL RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT : ------------------------------------ STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KOZHIKODE MUKKAM POLICE STATION, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.M.S.BREEZ THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. -------------------------------- B.A. No.7270 OF 2008 -------------------------------- Dated this the 6th day of February, 2009 O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offence is under Sections 498A and 34 of I.P.C. According to prosecution, the defacto complainant was married by first accused and after the marriage, she was harassed by demanding more money and dowry. She was mentally and physically harassed by first accused and his relatives. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that petitioner is the mother-in-law, who is the second accused and she is residing in Kollam and the defacto complainant and the husband were residing in Kozhikode. The marriage was a love marriage and hence, the couple was living separately from the family. The allegations made in the complaint are not correct and petitioner is a woman aged 65 years and she may be granted anticipatory bail, it is submitted. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor opposed this bail application and submitted that as per the allegations in the B.A.No.7270 of 2008 2 complaint, the defacto complainant was residing in the matrimonial house at Kollam after the marriage, and demands were made for more money and dowry. The defacto complainant's mother was forced to arrange Rs.2 Lakhs as loan from her sister and when she insisted the money to be paid back by first accused, the problems developed. As against petitioner, there is even allegations of physical harassment. Hence, it is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail, it is submitted. On hearing both sides, considering the serious nature of allegations made, I am satisfied that it is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. However, the refusal of anticipatory bail may not by itself be a ground for grant of bail under Section 437 Cr.P.C. Petitioner may surrender either before the Investigating Officer or before the court and seek appropriate remedy. The crime is registered as early as on 05.06.2008 and petitioner is bound to surrender to law. Hence the following order is passed : i) Petitioner shall surrender before the Investigating Officer or the Magistrate court B.A.No.7270 of 2008 3 concerned and co-operate with the investigation. Whether she surrenders or not, police is at liberty to arrest her and proceed in accordance with law. ii) No further application for anticipatory bail by petitioner in this crime will be entertained by this court. The petition is dismissed. K.HEMA, JUDGE pac