IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA TUESDAY, THE 16TH DECEMBER 2008 / 25TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 6524 of 2008() ----------------------------- CRIME NUMBER NOT KNOWN PETITIONERS/ACCUSED --------------------------------------- 1. NISSAR KUNJU, S/O.ABOO BACKER, KAVINTE VADAKKATHIL VEEDU, (FROM PARAYARAYATHU KIZHAKKATHIL), KADAPPA, MYNAGAPPALLY, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 2. JAMALUDHEEN, S/O.ABOOBACKER, PARAYARAYATHU KIZHAKKATHIL, KADAPPA, MYNAGAPPALLY, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 3. NAZEEMA, W/O.JAMALUDHEEN, PARAYARAYATHU KIZHAKKATHIL, KADAPPA, MYNAGAPPALLY, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 4. AZIYA UMMA, W/O.ABOOBACKER, PARAYARAYATHU KIZHAKKATHIL, KADAPPA, MYNAGAPPALLY, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.B.MOHANLAL RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT -------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CHOONADU POLICE STATION, KAYAMKULAM, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, SASTHAMKOTTA POLICE STATION, KOLLAM DISTRICT. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.M.S.BREEZ THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K. HEMA, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - B.A. No. 6524 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 16th day of December,2008 O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under sections 498A and 34 of I.P.C. According to prosecution, accused nos.1 and 2 allegedly harassed de facto complainant, who is the wife of first accused. The de facto complainant, on the instruction from first accused, entrusted gold ornaments to second accused for purchase of property in the name of first accused and de facto complainant. But, the property was purchased in the name of first accused. Thereafter also, petitioner demanded money from de facto complainant and her father was forced to pay Rs.2 lakhs. De facto complainant was residing in the house in the said property, but she was ousted from the house. First accused was working abroad and the offence was committed in furtherance of common intention by both accused. 3. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that petitioners are absolutely innocent of the allegations made. First accused married de facto complainant on 03.03.2001 and a child aged 6 years was born in the wedlock. There was a dispute between the de facto complainant and first accused, in respect of a property transaction. A power of attorney was issued in favour BA 6524/08 -2- of de facto complainant for executing documents and misusing the same, de facto complainant sold the property belonging to accused nos. 1 to 3. Because of this incident, there was strain in the relationship. But first accused had taken all steps to get back his wife and send a notice as Annexure I as early as on 04.10.2008. But the de facto complainant did not send any reply. 4. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that after long time of receiving Annexure I notice dated 4-10-2008, de facto complainant lodged a complaint dated 23.10.2008 alleging offence under Section 498 A of I.P.C. Learned counsel for petitioners also submitted that first accused purchased 11 cents of property and house, but de facto complainant is not willing to come and reside there. Therefore anticipatory bail may be granted, it is submitted. 5. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that third and fourth petitioners are not accused in the crime and the police have no intention to arrest them. This submission is recorded and hence, no ground exists to grant anticipatory bail to them. As far as accused nos.1 and 2 are concerned, there are allegations of matrimonial cruelty and it is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail to them, it is submitted. BA 6524/08 -3- 6. On hearing both sides, considering the rival contentions, I find that in the nature of allegations made, it is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. The crime was registered as early as on 25-10-2008 and petitioners 1 and 2 will be required for interrogation. 7. Hence, the following order is passed:- 1) Request for anticipatory bail by petitioners 3 and 4 is rejected. 2) Petitioners 1 and 2 are directed to surrender before the Investigating Officer within seven days and co-operate with the investigation. Whether they surrender or not police is at liberty to arrest them and proceed in accordance with law. This petition is dismissed. K.HEMA, JUDGE. mn.