IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA THURSDAY, THE 1ST JULY 2010 / 10TH ASHADHA 1932 Bail Appl..No. 4885 of 2009() ----------------------------- (CRIME NO.106/2009 OF MALAMPUZHA POLICE STATION) CMP.2282/2009 of DISTRICT COURT, PALAKKAD .................... ACCUSED NO.1 & 2: ------------------------------ 1. G.JESUDAS, AGED 44 YEARS, 'REBEKKA' HOUSE, KALLEPULLY, PALAKKAD. 2. G.BABY @ DORIS, AGED 46 YEARS, D/O.GABRIAL, 'REBEKKA' HOUSE, KALLEPULLY, PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.B.PREMOD RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT: -------------------------------------------------- SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MALAMPUZHA POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR.V.TEK CHAND SRI.K.P.HARISH THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. ---------------------- B.A No.4885 OF 2009 ----------------------------------- Dated this the 1st day of July, 2010. O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under sections 341, 323, 294(b) and 498 (A) r/w 34 IPC. According to prosecution, first accused married defacto complainant on 21.6.2008 and after the marriage, accused 1 to 3 physically and mentally harassed her. Second and third accused are the sisters of first accused. 3. Learned counsel for petitioners (A1 and A2) submitted that there are only vague allegations in the F.I. statement and third accused was already granted anticipatory bail. There are no allegations of assault, as against second accused. The attempts made to settle the matter before the Lok Adalath, failed. Hence, anticipatory bail may be granted, it is submitted. 4. This petition is opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that serious allegations are made against both the petitioners. There are allegations of physical assault and defacto complainant was injured. She was admitted in the hospital. The first accused is an official in the military service. B.A. No.4885/09 2 5. On hearing both sides, considering the various allegations as revealed from the case diary, the wound certificate, etc., I am satisfied that it is not fit to grant anticipatory bail to petitioners. Petitioners are not able to establish any ground for anticipatory bail. Though it is submitted that third accused is granted anticipatory bail, learned counsel for petitioners was not able to even substantiate that petitioners are similarly placed as that of third accused. Petition is dismissed. K. HEMA, JUDGE. Sou.