IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA MONDAY, THE 2ND FEBRUARY 2009 / 13TH MAGHA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 416 of 2009(F) ----------------------------------- CRIME NO.4/2009 OF PAYANGADI POLICE STATION .................... PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS.1 TO 4 : ---------------------------------------------- 1. THYVALAPPIL HARRIS, S/O.BASHEER, 30 YEARS, THYVALAPPIL HOUSE, MATTOOL SOUTH, KANNUR DISTRICT. 2. P.BASHEER, S/O.IBRAHIM, 60 YEARS, -DO- -DO- 3. THAIVALAPPIL ASMA, W/O.BASHEER, 50 YEARS, -DO- -DO- 4. THAIVALAPPIL NUSAIBA, D/O. BASHEER, 22 YEARS, -DO- -DO- BY ADV. SRI.M.RAMESH CHANDER RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & STATE : -------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. STATION HOUSE OFFICER, PAZHAYANGADI POLICE STATION. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.M.S.BREEZ THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. -------------------------------- B.A. No.416 OF 2009 -------------------------------- Dated this the 2nd day of February, 2009 O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Sections 498(A), 323 read with 34 of I.P.C. According to prosecution, first petitioner married the defacto complainant on 13.08.2006 and at the time of marriage, 50 sovereigns of gold and Rs.3.5 Lakhs were given to defacto complainant and money and gold were misappropriated. An additional amount was demanded and Rs.70,000/- more was given for arranging for a visa for the first accused. Even then, the demands did not stop. By demanding more money, the defacto complainant was harassed, physically and mentally and hence, the complaint. 3. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that the defacto complainant used to quarrel with petitioners after the marriage. She even stated that the child born in the wedlock is not that of the first accused. She also assaulted accused nos.2 and 4, who are her father-in-law and sister-in-law. Petitioners did not make any complaint, thinking about the prestige of the family but, on the very next day, the defacto complainant gave B.A.No.416 of 2009 2 the complaint. Hence, anticipatory bail may be granted, it is submitted. 4. This petition is strongly opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the defacto complainant is subjected to physical and mental torture by petitioners in the petitioners' house. She was even physically assaulted, demanding more money and dowry and it is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. On hearing both sides, I am satisfied of the submissions made by learned Public Prosecutor and I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail. Petitioners shall surrender before the Investigating Officer or the Magistrate court concerned and co-operate with the investigation. Whether they surrender or not, police is at liberty to arrest them and proceed in accordance with law. The petition is dismissed. K.HEMA, JUDGE pac