IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA THURSDAY, THE 23RD OCTOBER 2008 / 1ST KARTHIKA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 6538 of 2008() ----------------------------- (CRIME NO.1221/2008 OF KOTTARAKKARA POLICE STATION) PETITIONERS/ACCUSED: -------------------- 1. MAHESH.M.R., S/O.N.RADHAKRISHNAN PILLAI, MANOJ BHAVAN, INCHAKKADU MURI, KALAYAPURAM VILLAGE 2. N.LEELABHAI, D/O.SAVITHRI AMMA, MANOJ BHAVAN, INCHAKKADU MURI, KALAYAPURAM VILLAGE 3. MANOJ.M.R., S/O.N.RADHAKRISHNA PILLAI, MANOJ BHAVAN, INCHAKKADU MURI, KALAYAPURAM VILLAGE 4. T.R.JAMINI, W/O.MANOJ.M.R., MANOJ BHAVAN, INCHAKKADU MURI, KALAYAPURAM VILLAGE BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE VARGHESE(PERUMPALLIKUTTIYIL) SRI.A.R.DILEEP SMT.SURYA SASI RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KOTTARAKKARA POLICE STATION, KOTTARAKKARA. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. M.S. BREEZ. THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K. HEMA, J. --------------------------------------------------- Bail Appl.No.6538 of 2008 --------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 23rd day of October, 2008. ORDER Petition for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences is under Sections 498A read with Section 34 IPC. According to prosecution, the first accused is the husband and accused nos. 2 to 4 are the near relatives of the husband of de facto complainant. They allegedly harassed the de facto complainant after the marriage by demanding more money and the first accused took her to her house insisting that she should bring money. Thereafter, he refused to maintain her. There was physical and mental torture by the first accused. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the allegations in the F.I.R. will not constitute any offence under section 498A IPC. As per the allegations, the husband used to beat the de facto complainant. An amount of Rs. 3 lakh was paid to the husband and he had taken her to her house and left her insisting that she should bring money and he neglected and refused to maintain de facto complainant. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that [B.A.No.6538/08] 2 the first petitioner is unemployed and he has no income whereas the de facto complainant is working as a Lab Assistant in a Government school. There are no issues in the relationship. It is also submitted that while she was living in the matrimonial house her gold ornaments ( 10 sovereigns) were stolen and a complaint was also lodged by her stating this and therefore the allegation that petitioner took all her gold is not correct. He is not liable for the loss of the gold ornaments. The allegation is that the first petitioner has misappropriated all her gold ornaments except 4 sovereigns. 4. This petition is opposed. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the allegations against the first accused is serious in nature. There were allegations of both physical and mental torture. There was demand for money and he also misappropriated gold ornaments. The de facto complainant had 50 sovereigns in total and she was also taken to her house and abandoned without making any enquiries about her. As far as petitioners 2 to 4 are concerned, there is only general allegations. Hence, he has no objection in granting anticipatory bail to them, but first petitioner does not deserve anticipatory bail. 4. On hearing both sides, I am satisfied that considering the nature of the allegations made against the first petitioner, it is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. However, anticipatory bail can be granted to petitioners 2 to 4. [B.A.No.6538/08] 3 Hence, the following order is passed: 1) The prayer for anticipatory bail by the first petitioner (A1) is rejected. He is directed to surrender before the investigating officer within 7 days from today and co- operate with the investigation. 2) Petitioners 2 to 4 are directed to surrender before the Magistrate court concerned and, if any bail application is filed, they shall be released on bail on their executing bond for Rs.25,000/- with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate on the following conditions: i) They shall report before the investigating officer as and when directed. ii) They shall co-operate with the investigation. iii) They shall not commit any offence while on bail. Petition is allowed. K. HEMA, JUDGE. Krs.