IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA MONDAY, THE 29TH SEPTEMBER 2008 / 7TH ASWINA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 5802 of 2008() ------------------------------------ CRIME NO.410/2006 OF KATTAKADA POLICE STATION PETITIONER/ ACCUSED NO.1 : ------------------------------------- NOUSHAD, AGED 30,S/O.ALIYARKUNJU, CHAKKIPARA KUNNUPURATHU VEEDU, POOVACHAL, PERUMKULAM VILLAGE, NEDUMANGAD TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.SASTHAMANGALAM S. AJITHKUMAR SRI.SHAJIN S.HAMEED RESPONDENT : ----------------- THE SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KATTAKADA POLICE STATION REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.M.S.BREEZ THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. ------------------------------ B.A. No.5802 OF 2008 ------------------------------ Dated this the 29th day of September, 2008 O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offence is under Section 498A of IPC. According to the prosecution, the marriage between the petitioner and the defacto complainant was solemnized on 29.06.2006 and since the very next month, the petitioner started harassing the defacto complainant by demanding dowry etc. Hence a complaint was lodged on 05.10.2006, on the basis of which a crime is registered. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is absolutely innocent of the allegations made. The petitioner was present in India till October, 2006 and no allegations were made against him, while he was in India. 4. This petition is opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the crime was registered as early as on 05.10.2006 about two years back and the petitioner was not available for arrest. The investigation was completed and a charge sheet was laid. B.A.5802 of 2008 2 On hearing both sides, it appears that the petitioner was not available for the purpose of investigation for the past two years and in the nature of allegations made against the petitioner, it is not proper to grant anticipatory bail. It appears that within just one month of the marriage, the marriage was broken. The petitioner has no reason to say why and how the marital relationship came to an end, within such a short period. He has also not explained why he did not co-operate with the investigation. Hence, the petitioner is directed to surrender before the Magistrate court concerned within seven days from today. With this direction, the petition is dismissed. K.HEMA, JUDGE pac