IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA MONDAY, THE 2ND JUNE 2008 / 12TH JYAISHTA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 3375 of 2008() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.157/2008 OF VELLIKULAMKARA POLICE STATION PETITIONER/3RD ACCUSED --------------------------------------- INDIRA, W/O.RAVEENDRAN, AGED 58, R.R.BUILDINGS, NILAKKAMUKKU DESOM, VAKKOM P.O, CHIRAYINKEEZHU TALUK, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI. K.SIJU RESPONDENTS: STATE ------------------ STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY S.I.OF POLICE, VELLIKULANGARA POLICE STATION THROUGH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI.K.S.SIVAKUMAR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. ----------------------------------------- B.A.No.3375 of 2008 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 2nd day of June, 2008 O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. Petitioner is third accused, who is the mother of the first accused. According to the complaint filed by the defacto complainant before the Magistrate Court (Annexure-A1), first accused promised to marry defacto complainant and under the promise, he had sexual relationship with her and a child was born in the relationship on 4.6.2005. The defacto complainant is a Christian whereas the accused are Hindus. It is alleged that defacto complainant was forcibly taken to a temple and a ceremony of marriage was performed. Thereafter, he promised to marry her under the Special Marriage Act. 3. First accused took the defacto complainant to his parental house and thereafter, second and third accused persuaded first accused not to marry in accordance with law. They also physically and mentally tortured her. She went to her own house to avoid torture. First accused physically assaulted and tortured her with cigarette buds. She was put to starvation. The marriage was not BA.3375/08 2 liking of the second and third accused because they wanted first accused to marry a girl of their own, taking dowry. 4. It is submitted by learned Public Prosecutor that the defacto complainant was questioned during the course of investigation and it is revealed that the accused used to harass defacto complainant demanding dowry. The parties were living as husband and wife and offence made out is under Section 498A etc., it is submitted. First accused is in Gulf. This petition is opposed. 5. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that even as per the allegations in the complaint, defacto complainant was not married. The case is a falsely foisted one. 6. On hearing both sides, I am not satisfied on the facts of this case that this is a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. This petition is dismissed. K.HEMA, JUDGE vgs.