IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA MONDAY, THE 24TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 3RD AGRAHAYANA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 7042 of 2008() ----------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN BA.6199/2008 CRIME NO. 763/2008 OF KOYILANDY POLICE STATION PETITIONER/ACCUSED --------------------------------------- SRUTHI W/O. BABU, AGED 22 YEARS, KANDIYIL HOUSE,EDAKKAULAM P.O., MELOOR AMSOM,KOYILANDY TALUK, KOZHIKODE DT. BY ADV. SRI.P.R.SREEJITH RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT/STATE -------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY P.P. SRI.M.S.BREEZ THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K. HEMA, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - B.A. No. 7042 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 24th day of November,2008 O R D E R Petition for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under sections 406 and 498A IPC. According to prosecution, de facto complainant was married by 1st accused. Thereafter, his brother who is the 2nd accused was married to 3rd accused. The 3rd accused had brought gold ornaments than de facto complainant. Hence, 1st accused ill- treated and harassed de facto complainant asking to bring more gold ornaments. She was physically and mentally harassed by accused at home. Accused 2 and 3 also ill-treated and harassed her insisting that she should bring more money. 3. Petitioner along with other accused filed a petition for anticipatory bail before this Court and it was dismissed as per order dated 31-10-2008 in B.A.no.6199/2008. This Court had observed in that order, after considering the facts and circumstances that no circumstance or fact was pointed out to grant anticipatory bail to petitioners. The crime was registered as early as on 18-9-2008 and petitioners were not available for interrogation and hence, a direction was issued to petitioners to surrender before the Investigating Officer within ten days from today and co-operate with the investigation. Accused 1 to 3 did BA 7042/08 -2- not comply with the direction issued by this Court and they did not co-operate with the investigation also. Though this order was passed as early as on 31-10-2008 they are still absconding. 4. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that petitioner is pregnant by 2 ½ months and hence this may be taken as a ground to grant anticipatory bail, it is submitted. On considering the above submissions made, I had passed an interim order dated 18-11-2008 that the matter will be heard only after accused 1 and 2 surrendered, as directed in the order dated 31-10-2008 in B.A. no.6199/2008. The said order was passed on 18-11-2008. Even today, the accused have not surrendered. On the facts and circumstances of this case, I find that anticipatory bail cannot be granted to petitioner. Hence, petitioner is again directed to surrender before the Investigating Officer within two days from today and co-operate with the investigation, failing which no other anticipatory bail application will be entertained by this Court. With this direction, this petition is dismissed. K.HEMA, JUDGE. mn.