IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA TUESDAY, THE 10TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 21ST MAGHA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 632 of 2009() ------------------------------------- CRIME NO.16/09 OF HOSDURG POLICE STATION ............ PETITIONER (S)/ACCUSED -------------------------- SINDHU B.AGED 32 YEARS,W/O.HARICHANDRAN AMRUTHA NIVAS, HOSDURG VILLAGE BY ADV. MR.SURESH KUMAR KODOTH RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT & STATE ----------------------- STATE OF KERALA,REP.BY THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, HOSDURG POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.C.M.KAMMAPPU THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. ----------------------------------------- B.A.No.632 of 2008 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 10th February, 2009 O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Sections 324 and 326 of the Indian Penal Code. According to prosecution, petitioner assaulted de facto complainant, who is her husband by pouring hot water mixed with chilly powder on his face and thereafter assaulted him and he sustained disfiguration of the face and eye. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that de facto complainant had poured boiling fish curry on the head of petitioner immediately prior to the incident. There was an earlier quarrel between husband and wife and an agreement was also signed by them settling the entire matter and Annexure-1 is the agreement, which was executed in the presence of authorities in the community. This agreement is dated 5.11.2008. Thereafter also de facto complainant had assaulted petitioner. BA.632/09 2 4. This petition is opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the nature of allegations made is serious and it is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. It is submitted that the incident did not happen in the kitchen. De facto complainant was lying in the sit out, when petitioner was acted in the manner alleged. 5. On hearing both sides, considering the nature of allegations made, I am satisfied that it is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. Petitioner may seek the remedy before the trial court under Section 437 Cr.P.C. Hence, the following order is passed: (1) Petitioner shall surrender before the investigating officer and co-operate with the investigation. Whether she surrenders or not, police is at liberty to arrest her and proceed in accordance with law. (2) No further application for anticipatory bail by petitioner in this crime will be entertained by this Court. Petition is dismissed. K.HEMA, JUDGE vgs.