IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA TUESDAY, THE 17TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 28TH MAGHA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 8013 of 2008() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.960/08 OF KARUNAGAPPALLY POLICE STATION PETITIONER/ACCUSED -------------------------------------- PRASAD, AGED 40 YEARS, S/O.BHASKARAN, PUTHEN VEETTIL THEKKETHIL, MUTHUKATTUKARA, MAVELIKKARA. BY ADV. SRI.R.PADMAKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT -------------------------- THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, KARUNAGAPPALLY POLICE STATION, THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI.K.S.SIVAKUMAR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. ----------------------------------------- B.A.No. 8013 of 2008 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 17th February, 2009 O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Sections 498A, 406 and 497 of the Indian Penal Code and 5(1)(d) of the Immoral Traffic Act. According to prosecution, petitioner married de facto complainant in 1998 and after the marriage, he started harassment demanding more money and dowry and illtreated de facto complainant. He was abroad and he was caught by the police with another woman, with whom he was having illicit relationship, and he was sent back to India. De facto complainant was physically and mentally harassed by petitioner. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that the parties are residing separately from October, 2007 onwards. De facto complainant did not sustain any injury. She sent a notice to petitioner and a reply was given seeking restitution of conjugal right. The wife wants to marry another person and hence, a false complaint is given. Petitioner has two children BA.8013/08 2 in the wedlock and he seeks only restitution of conjugal right and hence, anticipatory bail may be granted, it is submitted. This petition is opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the allegations made in the complaint are very serious in nature. Petitioner was having illicit relationship with another lady and he was sent back to India, when he was caught in such relationship by the police. It is also submitted that the dowry harassment started ever since March and de facto complainant was even physically assaulted by petitioner. This is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail, it is submitted. On hearing both sides, considering the serious nature of allegations made, I do not find that this is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. The crime is registered as early as on 19.9.2008 and petitioner is bound to surrender and co-operate with the investigation. Hence, the following order is passed: (1) Petitioner shall surrender before the Magistrate Court concerned or before the investigating officer and co-operate with the investigation. Whether he surrenders or not, police is at liberty to arrest him and proceed in accordance with law. BA.8013/08 3 (2) No further application for anticipatory bail by petitioner in this crime will be entertained by this Court. Petition is dismissed. K.HEMA, JUDGE vgs.