IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA TUESDAY, THE 20TH JANUARY 2009 / 30TH POUSHA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 6030 of 2008() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.466/08 OF KODUVALLY POLICE STATION PETITIONER: ACCUSED NO.1 -------------------------------- MUHAMMED, S/O. AYAMMED, AGED 55 YEARS, KUYYANDATHIL HOUSE, KOLATHAKKARA AMSOM, PUTHUR AMSOM OF KOZHIKODE TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.SUNNY MATHEW RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT -------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, THROUGH THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KODUVALLY POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI.M.S.BREEZE THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20/01/2009, ALONG WITH BA NO. 6556 OF 2008 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. ----------------------------------------- B.A.No. 6030 of 2008 & B.A.No6556 of 2008 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 20th January, 2009 O R D E R These petitions are for bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Sections 323, 324, 294 (b), 354, 506(i), 308 and 498A read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Petitioner in B.A.No.6030 of 2008 is first accused and petitioner in B.A.No.6556 of 2008 is third accused in the crime. Accused 1 to 3 are father-in-law, mother-in-law and brother-in-law of de facto complainant. De facto complainant allegedly molested by her father-in-law by following her to the bed room and catching hold of her by her shoulder from behind and pushing her down to the cot and threatening her. He also torn the front portion of her churidar-top and bit her on the lip. She was also assaulted. On hearing the cries, accused 2 and 3 came there and they also assaulted her. A piece of fire wood was used for beating on the back. 2. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that de facto complainant's husband is working abroad and she wanted to BA.6030 & 6556/08 2 join him and reside with him. To create evidence for harassment by the family members, a false case is foisted against petitioners, it is submitted. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor opposed this application for anticipatory bail and submitted that the allegations made against the father-in-law and brother-in-law are serious in nature and it is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. 4. On hearing both sides and on going through the case diary and considering the various facts and circumstances, I find that it is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. The crime is registered as early as on 9.9.2008 and petitioners are not available for interrogation and investigation. Hence, petitioners are directed to surrender before the investigating officer and co- operate with the investigation without any delay. Whether they surrender or not, police is at liberty to arrest them and proceed in accordance with law. With this direction, petitions are dismissed. K.HEMA, JUDGE vgs.