IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K. HEMA TUESDAY, THE 1ST JULY 2008 / 10TH ASHADHA 1930 Bail Appl. No. 4102 of 2008() (Crime No: (not known to the petitioner) of Kadakal Police Station, Kollam District) ----------------------------- PETITIONER: 1. NAVAS, S/O. ABDUL AZEEZ, VELIKAKATH VEEDU, KARIMANKODE.P.O, PALODE. 2. ABDUL AZEEZ, VELIKAKATH VEEDU, KARIMANKODE.P.O, PALODE. BY ADV. SRI. DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN SRI. K.M.ANEESH RESPONDENTS: 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. 2. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KADAKKAL. BY SRI P. A SALIM, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR. THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. ------------------------------ B.A. No.4102 OF 2008 ------------------------------ Dated this the 1st day of July, 2008 O R D E R This is an application for anticipatory bail. 2. According to the prosecution, the 1st petitioner who is the husband of the defacto complainant mentally and physically harassed her. He also failed to return the entire gold ornaments to her father even though divorce has been effected. On the basis of the complaint made by the defacto complainant, a crime was registered against the 1st petitioner and others. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the 2nd petitioner who is the father-in-law of the defacto complainant is not an accused in the crime. Hence police is not intending to arrest him. This submission is recorded. The prayer for anticipatory bail by 2nd petitioner is to be rejected and I do so. 4. However learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the de facto complainant was harassed by the 1st petitioner while she was pregnant and due to the harassment, she developed bleeding and pregnancy has to be aborted on medical advice. She was later divorced also. B.A.4102/2008 2 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that entire gold ornaments are handed over to the defacto complainant's father as evidenced by Annexure A. But the police is harassing the petitioner and he will be compelled to give to defacto complainant ornaments and money which is not legally liable to give. Hence he requests for anticipatory bail. 6. On going through Annexure A it is seen that there are some corrections. Some words are struck off. On the facts of this case, I find that it is not fit to grant anticipatory bail to the 1st petitioner. The application is disposed of accordingly. K.HEMA, JUDGE pac