IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN WEDNESDAY, THE 19TH AUGUST 2009 / 28TH SRAVANA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 4465 of 2009() ---------------------------------------- CRIME NO.220/2009 OF MUNDAKKAYAM POLICE STATION, IDUKKI PETITIONER/2ND ACCUSED: --------------------------------------- P. RAJEEV, AGED 39 YEARS, S/O. K. PUSHPANKATHAN, BHAMA SADANAM, KUMARANELLOOR, KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.JINU JOSEPH RESPONDENTS : -------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE S.I. OF POLICE, MUNDAKKAYAM POLICE STATION, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. SRI. TEKCHAND, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T. SANKARAN, J. --------------------------- B.A. No. 4465 of 2009 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 19th day of August, 2009 O R D E R This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner is accused No.8 in Crime No.220/2009 of Mundakkayam Police Station. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 324, 326, 458, 308, 365 and 120 B read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. One Anuja, was in love with the driver of the vehicle belonging to the family of Anuja. Her mother was against the relationship. Anuja went with the driver. It is submitted that marriage between Anuja and the driver was solemnised. The prosecution case is that with the help of hired goondas, Anuja was forcibly taken out of the custody of her husband and she was forcibly taken to Australia. It is submitted that later Anuja came back to India and started residing with her husband. The petitioner/8th accused is the relative of the defacto complainant and he tried to persuade B.A. No. 4465/2009 Page numbers the defacto complainant to allow Anuja's mother to take Anuja from her husband's house. The defacto complainant, who is the uncle of the husband of Anuja, refused. Thereupon, it is alleged that the petitioner/8th accused hatched a conspiracy and hired the help of goondas for the purpose of forcibly taking Anuja from her husband's house. 4. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not think that this is a fit case where the petitioner is entitled to the discretionary relief under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Bail Application is accordingly dismissed. K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE scm