IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA FRIDAY, THE 20TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 1ST PHALGUNA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 813 of 2009() ---------------------------- (CRIME NO.179/2009 OF THODUPUZHA POLICE STATION) PETITIONER/ACCUSED -------------------------------------- SAJAN, AGED 45 YEARS, S/O.FRANCIS, RESIDING AT THAYIL HOUSE, ALAKKODU P.O. THODUPUZHA, ALAKKODU VILLAGE, ALAKKODU KARA, IDUKKI DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.A.T.ANILKUMAR SRI.P.DALBI EMMANUEL RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT -------------------------- THE STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. REP. BY THE SUB INSPECTOR, THODUPUZHA POLICE STATION IN CRIME NO.179/2009. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.K.S. SIVAKUMAR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K. HEMA, J. --------------------------------------------------- Bail Appl. No. 813 of 2009 --------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 20th day of February, 2009. ORDER Petition for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Sections 498(A), 324, 506 and 380 of Indian Penal Code. According to prosecution, petitioner married the de facto complainant in the year 1988 and she was physically and mentally harassed by the petitioner, being her husband. They were living separately for past 5 years. On 31.1.2009, petitioner went to the house where de facto complainant was residing and broke open the house, when she refused to open the door, assaulted her and she sustained injuries and she was hospitalised. A sum of Rs.2300/- was taken away by petitioner and she was also criminally intimidated. 3.Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that petitioner and de facto complainant were residing separately and the present complaint is filed only as a ground to move a petition for divorce by the wife. Nothing happened as alleged, it is submitted. [B.A.No.813/09] 2 4. This petition is opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the allegations made against petitioner are serious. The de facto complainant even sustained injuries in the assault made by petitioner. This is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail, it is submitted. 5. On hearing both sides, considering the nature of allegations made, I am satisfied that this is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. The crime was registered as early as on 1.1.2009 and petitioner is bound to surrender. Hence, the following order is passed: 1) Petitioner shall surrender before the investigating officer without delay and co-operate with the investigation. Whether he surrenders or not, police is at liberty to arrest him and proceed in accordance with law. 2) No further application for anticipatory bail by the petitioner in this crime will be entertained by this Court. Petition is dismissed. K. HEMA, JUDGE. Krs. [B.A.No.813/09] 3