IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA THURSDAY, THE 21ST AUGUST 2008 / 30TH SRAVANA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 5214 of 2008() ----------------------------- (CRIME NO.557/2008 OF KOYILANDY POLICE STATION) PETITIONER/ 1ST ACCUSED ---------------------------------------- SULFEEKAR, S/O.SHAIK MAMMU, HIRA MAHAL, MANADRAVIL, KINASSERY, VALAYANAD AMSOM AMD DESOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.T.G.RAJENDRAN RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT & STATE -------------------------------- 1. THE SUB INSPECTOR 0F POLICE, KOYILANDY POLICE STATION. 2. STATE REP;BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. M.S. BREEZ. THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K. HEMA, J. ----------------------------------------------- Bail Appl.No.5214 of 2008 ----------------------------------------------- Dated this the 21st day of August, 2008. ORDER Petition for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Sections 315, 406 and 498A of IPC. According to prosecution, the de facto complainant was married to the petitioner on 23.6.2007 and they were living together as husband and wife in the house of the petitioner. Petitioner subjected the de facto complainant to cruelty, demanding more dowry and, when she was pregnant by four months, in order to cause abortion, she was kicked on the abdomen in the presence other accused, as a result of which she became unconscious and was admitted in the hospital and dead foetus was expelled from the uterus. This happened on 14.1.2008. She was discharged from the hospital on 18.1.2008. Thereafter, she filed a complaint based on which the crime is registered against the petitioner and others. 3. Petitioner is the first accused. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is working as [B.A.No.5214/04] 2 “Spinner” and the de facto complainant is having B.Ed. Degree. The allegations made against the petitioner are incorrect. The petitioner himself was meeting all the expenses in the hospital. He had even given blood and it is not correct to say that there was any assault on her. The medical certificate will not show that the de facto complainant was assaulted. The de facto complainant wanted divorce from the petitioner and hence she has filed false complaint, it is submitted. 4. This petition is opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the case diary will reveal that the petitioner has allegedly treated the de facto complainant with cruelty and also assaulted her, consequent to which, she had a miscarriage. It is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail, it is submitted. 5. On hearing both sides, I find that, in the nature of the allegations made, it is a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. Petition is dismissed. K. HEMA, JUDGE. Krs.