IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA THURSDAY, THE 25TH SEPTEMBER 2008 / 3RD ASWINA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 4846 of 2008() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.292/08 OF KEEZHVAYPUR POLICE STATION PETITIONER/ACCUSED:- ---------------------------------------- N.J. JOHN,NEDUMANNIL VEEDU, MAARIKKAL, AANIKKADU VILLAGE, MALLAPPALLY TALUK,. BY ADV. SRI.P.HARIDAS RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KEEZHVAYPUR POLICE STATION. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI.M.S.BREEZE THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. ----------------------------------------- B.A.No. 4846 of 2008 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 25th September, 2008 O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Sections 420 and 498A of the Indian Penal Code. According to prosecution, petitioner and the de facto complainant were living together as husband and wife since 1999 and a child is also born in the relationship. Thereafter, in the year 2004, they got married. In 2007 the de facto complainant obtained a job in Delhi and she went there and came back in 2008 and she found that the petitioner was having illicit relationship with another lady. Because of this relationship, the petitioner was iltreated by the de facto complainant. 3. She was physically and mentally harassed by him. Rs.35,000/- was received by the petitioner from the de facto complainant making her believe that the property which was mortgaged by the petitioner's sister will be redeemed and a sale deed will be executed in the joint name of the petitioner and the de facto complainant. But, after getting the property [B.A.No.4846/08] 2 redeemed, the money was misappropriated and the de facto complainant was cheated. 4. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that the de facto complainant was residing in Delhi from 2006 onwards and there is no occasion for the petitioner to iltreat her. The allegations are false. It is submitted that anticipatory bail may be granted. 5. This petition is opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that in the nature of the allegations made, it may not be proper to grant anticipatory bail. 6. After hearing both sides, I am satisfied that this is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail, considering the nature of the allegations made against the petitioner. Petition is dismissed. K.HEMA, JUDGE vgs.