IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA FRIDAY, THE 19TH SEPTEMBER 2008 / 28TH BHADRA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 5423 of 2008() ----------------------------- (CRIME NO.1828/08 OF ALUVA POLICE STATION) PETITIONER/1ST ACCUSED --------------------------------------- SHAFEEK, S/O. ALIKUNJU, AGED 27 YEARS, MANAYIL HOUSE, CHUNANGAMVELI, ALUVA. BY ADV. SRI.C.A.CHACKO SMT.C.M.CHARISMA SRI.N.A.SHAFEEK RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT ----------------------------------- THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTING SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ALUVA, REP.BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.K.S. SIVAKUMAR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K. HEMA, J. ------------------------------------------------ Bail Appl.No.5423 of 2008 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 19th day of September, 2008. ORDER Petition for anticipatory bail. 2. Petitioner is the first accused in the crime. The alleged offence is under Section 498A of Indian Penal Code. According to prosecution, the petitioner is the husband of de facto complainant and petitioner's mother is the 2nd accused. Both of them harassed the de facto complainant physically and mentally by demanding gold ornaments. On a complaint filed by the de facto complainant, a crime was registered against petitioner and another. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that one more chance may be given for settlement of the case before the Lok Adalat. 4. This case was referred to the Lok Adalat at High Court on 15.9.2008 and it was again posted to 17.9.2008. The de facto complainant has not turned up and, hence, the case is sent back to this Court. I do not think that any further time granted to the petitioner will be useful for settling the case, in the absence of de facto complainant. [B.A.No.5423/08] 2 4. This petition is opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor pointed out that, as per the allegations made, de facto complainant was hospitalised on physical assault on her and even now de facto complainant is undergoing treatment in the hospital. The petitioner had even gone to hospital and made assault on her. This is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail, it is submitted. On hearing both sides, in the nature of allegations made, I do not think it fit to grant anticipatory bail. Petition is dismissed. Sd/- K. HEMA, JUDGE. Krs.