IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA THURSDAY, THE 20TH MAY 2010 / 30TH VAISAKHA 1932 Bail Appl..No. 2445 of 2010(E) ------------------------------------------ (CRIME NO. 101/2010 OF ELATHUR POLICE STATION, KOZHIKODE) ............ PETITIONERS: --------------------- 1. RAJESH, SON OF RAJAN, AGED 28 YEARS, MEPPANTTIL HOUSE, MAKKADA AMSOM AND DESOM, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. 2. RAMANI, W/O.LATE RAJAN, MEPPANTTIL HOUSE, MAKKADA AMSOM AND DESOM, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.P.MOHAMMED ASLAM. RESPONDENT: ---------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. V. TEKCHAND. THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: prv. K. HEMA, J. --------------------------- B.A. No. 2445 of 2010 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 20th day of May, 2010 O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Sections 354, 418 and 493 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The facts of the case are narrated by the learned Sessions Judge in the Annexure A order as follows: “The prosecution case is that in the year 2007 when the de facto complainant was studying for B.Com degree in Government College, Koyilandy, the first accused, who was the conductor of a bus in which the de facto complainant used to come to the college, acquainted with the de facto complainant used to come to the college, acquainted with the de facto complainant and on 29.09.2008 took the de facto complainant in a car by misleading the de facto complainant to Arya Samajam Office at Kozhikode and forced her to sign in some papers under the threat of suicide and thereafter by B.A. No. 2445 of 2010 2 misusing the photo of the de facto complainant, forced her to put her signature in some other documents also and thereafter the first accused entered in sexual intercourse with the de facto complainant misrepresenting her that the first accused is the husband of the de facto complainant and thus the accused have committed the above offences.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that first petitioner is married to de facto complainant and marriage certificate issued from the Arya Samajam is Anenxure -A. A certificate of marriage was issued as Annexure-B also from the Corporation office, Calicut. They were living together as husband and wife. The complaint is filed at the instance of the de facto complainant's father, who was not happy with the marriage. The offence under Section 498(3), which is the only non bailable offence which not lie, since there is a marriage as evidenced by Annexures A and B, it is submitted. B.A. No. 2445 of 2010 3 4. This petition is strongly opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that on the basis of Annexure A, it cannot be held that there was a marriage, since as per the complaint itself, de facto complainant has not married the first petitioner and she was forced to sign some documents at the Arya Samajam under threat. It is also pointed out that as per the allegations made by the de facto complainant she was being harassed by the petitioners while she was living in the first petitioner's house. It is submitted that the second petitioner, who is the mother-in-law had made some remarks to subject herself to immoral activities. This is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail, it is submitted. 5. On hearing both sides and on going through the documents, I find that as per the allegations made by de facto complainant, there was no marriage, but she was forced to sign certain papers under threat. Petitioners have allegedly harassed de facto complainant while they were together. Considering the various facts and circumstances, I do not find it fit to grant anticipatory bail. B.A. No. 2445 of 2010 4 6. Hence the following order is passed: 1. Petitioners shall appear before the investigating officer or before the Magistrate Court concerned and co-operate with the investigation. 2. Whether they surrender or not police is at liberty to arrest and proceed in accordance with law. 3. I make it clear that dismissal of anticipatory bail application by itself is not a ground to refuse bail under Section 437 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. This petition is dismissed. K. HEMA, JUDGE ln