IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA FRIDAY, THE 21ST NOVEMBER 2008 / 30TH KARTHIKA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 6745 of 2008() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.313/08 OF VALLIKUNNAM POLICE STATION PETITIONER/ACCUSED 1 & 2 -------------------------------------------- 1. SUJITH KUMAR, KALEETTUMURI THARAYIL VEEDU, KARAIMAMURI, VALLIKUNNAM VILLAGE. 2. PONNAMMA, KALEETTUMURI THARAYIL VEEDU, KARAIMAMURI, VALLIKUNNAM VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.P.SREEKUMAR SRI.K.S.MANU (PUNUKKONNOOR) RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT -------------------------- 1. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VALLIKUNNAM POLICE STATION. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI.K.S.SIVAKUMAR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. ----------------------------------------- B.A.No. 6745 of 2008 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 21st November, 2008 O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Sections 498A and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. According to prosecution, petitioners are husband and mother-in-law of de facto complainant and they are accused 1 and 2 respectively. First accused married de facto complainant and started residing together at Mumbai. During the stay with the first accused, both the accused illtreated de facto complainant. First accused is a drunkard. He used to compel her for unnatural sex and this was resisted. He was also used to physically assault her and second accused, who is the mother-in-law, compelled her to wash her under garments. Therefore, she came to her house in Kerala. 3. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that petitioners are innocent of the allegations made. Marriage between first petitioner and de facto complainant was not to the liking of the family members of de facto complainant. The marriage was a love marriage. Later, when de facto complainant was residing with accused in Mumbai, she was called to de facto complainant's house by stating that her mother committed suicide, but it was a false BA.6745/08 2 information just to get the de facto complainant to Kerala. Later, she was informed that mother has bone cancer and she was sent to Kerala. 4. It is also submitted that when first accused came to Kerala to take her back, he was prevented from taking her back. De facto complainant informed him that she was asked to divorce first petitioner. First petitioner filed a complaint before the police on 18.9.2008. But, on 25.9.2008, de facto complainant filed the present complaint against petitioner and his mother. The delay in filing the complaint itself will indicate falsity in the complaint. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that a petition was filed by first petitioner for restitution of conjugal rights and de facto complainant filed a petition for divorce and both are pending. The complaint is filed only to see that he does not participate in the counselling which has to be conducted before the Family Court. 5. This petition is strongly opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that allegations are made against both the accused. Second accused used to pretend to be a holy person and illtreat de facto complainant by compelling her to wash mother-in- law's undergarments etc. 6. On hearing both sides, considering the serious nature of the allegations made, I find, it is not a fit case to grant anticipatory BA.6745/08 3 bail. Considerations for granting anticipatory bail are different from considerations for regular bail. Petitioners shall surrender before the Magistrate Court concerned or before the investigating officer and resort to the ordinary remedy available to him. Even dismissal of the anticipatory bail application may not in all circumstances be made a ground to grant bail under Section 437 Cr.P.C. With this observation and direction, petition is dismissed. K.HEMA, JUDGE vgs.