IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA FRIDAY, THE 28TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 7TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 7253 of 2008() ------------------------------------ CMC.1184/2008 of SESSIONS COURT, KOZHIKODE CRIME NO.270/2008 OF MAVOOR POLICE STATION .................... PETITIONER/1ST ACCUSED : ---------------------------------- P K MURALIDHARAN, AGED 42 YEARS, S/O.LATE BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, "LATHA MANDIRAM", KATTANGAL ROAD, PIPE LINE JUNCTION, MAVOOR, KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SRI.MANJERI SUNDERRAJ SMT.K.K.PREETHA RESPONDENTS : ------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REP.BY STATION HOUSE OFFICER, MAVOOR POLICE STATION, CRIME 270/2008. 2. THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.K.S.SIVAKUMAR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. ------------------------------ B.A. No. 7253 OF 2008 ------------------------------ Dated this the 28th day of November, 2008 O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Sections 323, 506 (ii) and 498A IPC. According to prosecution, petitioner along with family members harassed the defacto complainant by stating that first accused would have got a better alliance, the defacto complainant had no sufficient gold ornaments etc. First accused took away the defacto complainant's ornaments and gave it to the other accused. He also demanded more money from the defacto complainant and harassed her. When the first accused went abroad, his family members ill-treated the defacto complainant. She was getting salary from her employment in a private establishment. She is a B.Com. Graduate. After first accused returned from gulf, he demanded Rs.2 Lakhs from the defacto complainant. But, she was not able to raise money. The defacto complainant was even brutally assaulted on 27.09.2008 by first accused and she could not go for her job. Thereafter she left the B.A.7253 of 2008 2 matrimonial house. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that petitioner and defacto complainant were married on 24.11.1996. After 12 years of marriage, the present complaint is given. The defacto complainant had not raised any objection against the petitioner at any time before. The petitioner was in gulf after the marriage. He had come back from gulf and now he is in financial crisis. Therefore this complaint is falsely lodged. He may be granted anticipatory bail, it is submitted. 4. This petition is opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that there are clear allegations of physical assault on the defacto complainant by first accused. The relatives of first accused were granted anticipatory bail. But, because of the specific allegations against petitioner, he was refused anticipatory bail and it is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail to petitioner, it is submitted. On hearing both sides, considering the nature of allegations made, I am not persuaded to grant anticipatory bail. No special circumstances are shown to invoke powers B.A.7253 of 2008 3 under Section 438 Cr.P.C. The crime was registered as early as on 22.10.2008 and the petitioner will be required for interrogation by the police and for the purpose of investigation. Petitioner is bound to surrender before the police and co-operate with the investigation. The petition is dismissed. K.HEMA, JUDGE pac