IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA THURSDAY, THE 19TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 30TH MAGHA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 573 of 2009() ---------------------------------- CRIME NO.NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER PETITIONERS/ACCUSED : ------------------------------ 1. K.MURALEEDHARAN, SHYAM VIHAR, MATHLIL P.O., THRIKKADAVOOR, KOLLAM. 2. N.SIVANANDAN, THIRUVONAM, MUNDAKKAL EAST, KOLLAM-1. 3. VASANTHA.B, W/O.N.SIVANANDAN, THIRUVONAM, MUNDAKKAL EAST, KOLLAM-1. 4. S.SHA, S/O.N.SIVANANDAN, THIRUVONAM, MUNDAKKAL EAST, KOLLAM-1. 5. HENA.S, W/O.SHA, THIRUVONAM, MUNDAKKAL EAST, KOLLAM-1. BY ADV. SRI.SABU GEORGE RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANTS : ---------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE DEPUTY.S.P., CRIME DETACHMENT BUREAU, KOLLAM. 3. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ANCHALUMMOOD POLICE STATION, KOLLAM. 4. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KOLLAM EAST POLICE STATION, KOLLAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.K.S.SIVAKUMAR SRI.V.V.RAJA FOR DEFACTO COMPLAINANT THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. -------------------------------- B.A. No.573 OF 2009 -------------------------------- Dated this the 19th day of February, 2009 O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. According to prosecution, petitioners are accused nos. 1 to 5 in crime No.56/2009 of the Anchallummood police station which is registered under Sections 498A and 420 I.P.C. As per the allegations in the complaint, petitioners were demanding money and gold from the defacto complainant and harassing her and she was forced to leave the matrimonial house and live with her husband, outside the family house. 3. Learned counsel for petitioners, learned counsel for defacto complainant and learned Public Prosecutor are heard. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that the defacto complainant did not raise any allegation of matrimonial cruelty till filing of the compliant. It is true that there was some pressure for money in the family and the property of defacto complainant's relative was mortgaged. When that person demanded the property to be retrieved free from loan, the entire dispute started and the defacto complainant pressurised B.A.No.573 of 2009 2 first accused to sell the property and retrieve the mortgage. Petitioners were prepared to pay off the amount, but, a complaint is filed alleging matrimonial cruelty, which is not sustainable, it is submitted. In the light of these submissions, learned counsel for petitioner submitted that he confines his prayer to anticipatory bail in crime No.56/2009 of Anchallummood police station. 4. At the very outset, learned counsel for defacto complainant pointed out that what the petitioners require is a blanket order of anticipatory bail as revealed from the prayer in the petition and the body of the petition. It appears that petitioners are involved in various crimes and an attempt is now made to get a blanket order, which may apply to all the crimes, which might be registered against petitioners. It is also pointed out that a conviction warrant is pending against fifth accused in C.C.No.1930 of 2001 on the file of the JFCM-I, Kollam. 5. This petition is strongly opposed. It is submitted by learned Public Prosecutor that the defacto complainant was forced to give her gold ornaments and even raise money B.A.No.573 of 2009 3 because of the demands made by the close relatives of her husband. She had to raise Rs.20 Lakhs as loan even by pledging a property, which belongs to a relative of the defacto complainant. Though the defacto complainant insisted that the property be retrieved, petitioners were not willing. Therefore, the property was sought be auctioned and the owner of the property had to pay the amount by himself and get the sale adjourned. The defacto complainant's father-in-law committed suicide because of the financial pressure in the family. The defacto complainant was asked to give money and her gold ornaments and there was continuous harassment from petitioners. This is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail, it is submitted. 6. On hearing both sides, I find that considering the serious nature of the allegations made, it may not be a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. It may be true that the entire dispute arose because of the financial dealings but that may not be a ground to extent any benefit to petitioners. No special circumstance is made out to grant anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. Petitioners are bound to surrender. The B.A.No.573 of 2009 4 crime is registered as early as on 24.01.2009. Hence, the following order is passed : i) Petitioners shall surrender before the investigating officer or the Magistrate court concerned without any delay and co-operate with the investigation. Whether they surrender or not, police is at liberty to arrest them and proceed in accordance with law. ii) No further application for anticipatory bail by petitioners in this crime will be entertained by this court. The petition is dismissed. K.HEMA, JUDGE pac