IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA THURSDAY, THE 4TH SEPTEMBER 2008 / 13TH BHADRA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 5526 of 2008() ----------------------------- CRIME 378/08 OF EDACHERI POLICE STATION PETITIONERS : ACCUSED ------------------------ 1. NOUFAL, S/O. MAYANKUTTY HAJI, AGED 26, KANNIPOYIL HOUSE, KARTHIKAPPALLY.P.O, VATAKARA TALUK. 2. KADEESA, W/O. MAYANKUTTY HAJI, AGED 42, KANNIPOYIL HOUSE, KARTHIKAPPALLY.P.O, VATAKARA TALUK. 3. SHAMEENA, W/O. AMMED, AGED 20, KANNIPOYIL HOUSE, KARTHIKAPPALLY.P.O, VATAKARA TALUK. 4. ALI MASTER, S/O. SOOP HAJI, AGED 43, PALOLI HOUSE, VELLIYODE AMSOM DESOM, VATAKARA TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.ZUBAIR PULIKKOOL RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT ------------------------ STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED B EDACHERY POLICE, THROUGH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI.M.S.BREEZE THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. ----------------------------------------- B.A.No. 5526 of 2008 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 4th September, 2008 O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. According to prosecution, first petitioner and the de facto complainant were married on 15.7.2008 and on 3.8.2008 the de facto complainant was assaulted by petitioners 1 to 3 and the fourth petitioner did not allow her to go to her house. De facto complainant was hospitalised on the same day and she gave a complaint, on the basis of which the crime was registered on 4.8.2008. 3. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that this is a falsely foisted case. It is difficult to believe that within three weeks of the marriage an incident of this nature would take place and the wife and her family members will straight away go to the police station to make a complaint, without making any effort to settle the matter. It is also submitted that the divorce was effected on 1.8.2008, since the de facto complainant had suppressed her previous marriage and divorce. BA.5526/08 2 4. This petition is opposed. The allegations in the complaint would go to show that within a short period of the marriage, the petitioners have iltreated the de facto complainant demanding money etc. and she was hospitalised also due to the assault. To substantiate the case that the petitioner divorced the de facto complainant, there is absolutely nothing before this Court and it is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. 5. On hearing both sides, I find that there is nothing on record to show that the first accused divorced the de facto complainant on 1.8.2008 and the alleged incident occurred was after the divorce and hence, there is improbability in the allegations made. There is only oral assertion that the parties are separated and the incident did not occur etc. In the above circumstances, I do not think it fit to grant anticipatory bail. Petition is dismissed. K.HEMA, JUDGE vgs.