IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA FRIDAY, THE 20TH AUGUST 2010 / 29TH SRAVANA 1932 Bail Appl..No. 4977 of 2010() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.106/09 OF MALAMPUZHA POLICE STATION, PALAKKAD .................... (S): PETITIONER/ACCUSED -------------------------------------- 1. G.JESUDAS, AGED 44 YEARS, 'REBEKKA' HOUSE, KALLEPULLY, PALAKKAD. 2. G.BABY @ DORIS, AGED 46 YEARS, D/O.GABRIAL, 'REBEKKA' HOUSE, KALLEPULLY, PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.B.PREMOD RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT -------------------------- SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MALAMPUZHA POLICE STATION, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.TEK CHAND. THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. ----------------------------------------------- B.A. No. 4977 of 2010 ----------------------------------------------- Dated 20th August, 2010. O R D E R Petition for anticipatory bail. 2. This is a second application for anticipatory bail. The alleged offences are under Sections 341, 323, 294(b) and 498A read with Section 34 IPC. According to prosecution, first accused married de facto complainant on 21.6.2008 and after the marriage accused nos. 1 to 3, who are the husband and sisters-in-law of de facto complainant, physically and mentally harassed her. 3. Petitioner's counsel submitted that the de facto complainant came to first accused's house and created commotion there and a situation arose in which there was scuffle. She had not sustained any injury. First accused is working outside Kerala. When he came on leave, de facto complainant came to know about it and she came to the house of petitioners. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that as [B.A.No.4977/2010] 2 per the wound certificate no injury is sustained by the de facto complainant and it is a false case. 4. This petition is opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that serious allegations are made against both the petitioners. This is the second application for anticipatory bail. An attempt was made to settle the matter through Lok Adalath also failed. There are allegations of physical assault and de facto complainant was admitted in the hospital. This Court had also gone through the case diary and wound certificate and found that this is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. 5. On going through the case diary and the wound certificate, I had already found in the order in the earlier application for anticipatory bail filed by petitioner that this is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. I have again gone through the wound certificate today and I find that there is specific allegation that the husband and the sisters-in-law assaulted de facto complainant. She also sustained swelling on he scalp and also abrasion, as per the wound certificate. There is absolutely no reason to grant anticipatory bail. [B.A.No.4977/2010] 3 6. Petitioners are bound to surrender before the investigating officer without delay, since I am satisfied that any further delay will protract investigation. No further application for anticipatory bail by this petitioners will be entertained by this Court hereafter. Petition is dismissed. K. HEMA, JUDGE. krs.