IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA FRIDAY, THE 14TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 23RD KARTHIKA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 6649 of 2008() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.UNKNOWN OF TIRUR POLICE STATION PETITIONERS: -------------------- 1. BABU AGED 37 YEARS, S/O.VELAYUDHAN, KANNATHU HOUSE, PULLOONI, PO MANGALAM, TIRUR. 2. VELAYUDHAN, AGED 75 YEARS, S/O.ARUMUGHAN KANNATHU HOUSE, PULLOONI, PO MANGALAM, TIRUR. 3. CHEERU, AGED 70 YEARS, W/O.VELAYUDHAN, KANNATHU HOUSE, PULLOONI, PO MANGALAM, TIRUR. 4. RAJAN, AGED 28 YEARS, S/O.VELAYUDHAN, KANANTHU HOUSE, PULLOONI, PO MANGALAM, TIRUR. BY ADV. SRI.C.V.MANUVILSAN SRI.VIDYA MANUVILSAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY S.I.OF POLICE TIRUR, THROUGH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.K.S.SIVAKUMAR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. --------------------------------------------- B.A.No.6649 of 2008 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 14th November, 2008 O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offence is under Section 498A IPC. According to prosecution, defacto complainant was married to the first accused in the year 1994 and thereafter, they were living together in the matrimonial house. The gold ornaments and money given at the time of her marriage were misappropriated by the first accused. A1 was immoral and he had illicit relationship with other ladies and on one occasion, she found that he was talking to such a lady. There was a quarrel and she was beaten up by the first accused. The other accused also joined the first accused in ill treating her. 3. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that the allegations made are absolutely false. The defacto complainant did not sustain any injury. She was not hospitalised at any time. She is an adamant lady and she has not consummated even the marriage. The first accused was suffering only because his sister was married by the defacto complainant's brother. His sister is BA No.6649/2008 2 having three children and now because of this case, she was also ome back to the house. Hence, petitioners may be granted a ticipatory bail, it is submitted. 4. Learned public prosecutor submitted that accused nos.2 and 3 are deleted from the array of accused and hence, police has no intention to arrest them. It is also submitted that 4th petitioner is not an accused. In the complaint, there are only 3 accused. Therefore, police has no intention to arrest petitioners 2 to 4. This submission is recorded. 5. Learned public prosecutor also submitted that the allegations made against first accused are serious in nature. He along with the defacto complainant were living together from 1994 onwards and for the past 14 years, as per the materials available in the case diary, first accused's sister is still living in defacto complainant's house with husband and children. It is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail, it is submitted. 6. On hearing both sides, I am satisfied that considering the nature of allegations made against first accused, it is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail to him. In the light of submissions made by the learned public prosecutor which are BA No.6649/2008 3 recorded, the question of anticipatory bail being granted to petitioners 2 to 4 does not arise. In the result, the following order is passed: (i) The prayer for anticipatory bail by first accused is rejected. (ii) Request for anticipatory bail by petitioners 2 to 4 are rejected in the light of the submission recorded. (iii) The first accused shall surrender before the Investigation Officer without any delay and co-operate with investigation. Whether he surrenders or not, police will be at liberty to arrest him and proceed in accordance with law. With this direction, petition is dismissed. K.HEMA, JUDGE csl