IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA THURSDAY, THE 7TH AUGUST 2008 / 16TH SRAVANA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 4708 of 2008() ----------------------------- CRIME NO. 176/2008 OF KADUTHURUTHY POLICE STATION PETITIONER/ACCSUED ----------------------------------- RAJESH S.NAIR, S/O.SADASIVAN PILLAI, SANKARAMANGALAM HOUSE, CHAMAKKALA, KOTHENELLOOR, KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.PHILIP T.VARGHESE SRI.THOMAS T.VARGHESE RESPONDENT: COMPLAINANT ------------------------ STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, REP. THE S.I. OF POLICE, KADUTHURUTHY POLICE STATION, KADUTHURUTHY. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.M.S.BREEZ FOR THE RESPODNENT. ADV. SRI.R.MANOJ THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K. HEMA, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - B.A.No. 4708 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 7th day of August, 2008 O R D E R Application for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offence is under section 498A IPC. According to prosecution, the defacto-complainant physically and mentally harassed by the petitioner after the marriage. Both parties are at the second marriage. They were residing at different places because of the employment. But, later they started living in a house at Kayamkulam, but during this period also there was ill-treatment. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the allegations are false. Both parties had their second marriage. It was not possible for them to live together because of various reasons. The petitioner was employed at Kottayam and the defacto-complainant was residing at Thiruvananthapuram. Thereafter, for a few months, they took a house at Kayamkulam and they were living together there. They could not get along with each other and she went back her house at Thiruvananthapuram and he went to Ettumanoor. While so, she made a complaint to the Womens Commission but nothing was done and they were living separately. BA 4708/2008 -2- 4. Thereafter, it is alleged by the petitioner that she had come to petitioner's house on 22-5-2008 and lived there up to 30-5-2008 on which day she was brutally manhandled by the petitioner. Hence, she went to Thiruvananthapuram on the same day from where she went to the doctor on 2-6-2008. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the allegations are absolutely false. After the complaint filed before the Womens Commission, both parties have not lived together at all and it is unbelievable that they would live together, especially since she was working at Thiruvananthapuram. There was no mediation also and it is only false allegations made against the petitioner and no injuries is caused . Her wound certificate would show that there was only contusion. That too, when she was examined by the doctor after two days. 5. Learned counsel for the defacto-complainant is also heard. It is submitted by the learned counsel that the petitioner and the defacto- complainant had some difference of opinion in the marital life. But on 22-5- 2008, she came to the house of the petitioner on advice made by the petitioner's brother who was working abroad. She was advised to take leave for some time and join the petitioner and live together. Accordingly, she took leave for one month, came to the petitioner's house lived there for seven days and on 30-5-2008 she was manhandled by the petitioner. She BA 4708/2008 -3- went to the doctor and she had contusion. It is also submitted that the petitioner agreed that he would come and reside with the defacto- complainant during counselling at the Lok Adalath, but he threatened thereafter that he would spread rumor against her that she was immoral and hence she finds it difficult to go back to the petitioner. It is also submitted that in pursuance of the advice given by the petitioner's brother, she had also procured a transfer to Kottayam, but because of the petitioner's attitude and ill-treatment, she could not continue in the petitioner's house and hence she was forced to cancell the transfer order. 6. Both parties were referred to the Lok Adalath for settlement. Though an interim arrangement was made at the Lok Adalath as agreed to the parties, it appears that that has not worked out. 7. On hearing both sides, I find that this is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. The application is dismissed. K. HEMA, JUDGE. mn.