IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA TUESDAY, THE 5TH AUGUST 2008 / 14TH SRAVANA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 4441 of 2008() ----------------------------- (CRIME NO. 345/2008 EZHUKONE POLICE STATION) PETITIONERS/ACCUSED : -------------------- 1. PHILIPOSE SCARIA, AGED 44, KOLINCHU VILA THEKKATHIL, MULAVANA, MUKKOODU.P.O, KUNDARA, KOLLAM. 2. ACHIAMMA SCARIA, AGED 82, MOTHER OF IST PETITIONER, RESIDING AT -DO- 3. SHEEJA JOHN, AGED 21, IST PETITIONER'S SISTER'S DAUGHTER RESIDING AT -DO- 4. JOSEPH, AGED 58, BROTHER OF THE IST PETITIONER, J.J BHAVAN, MOKKOODU.P.O, KUNDARA. BY ADV. SRI.K.SUBASHCHANDRA BOSE RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT: ---------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY SRI. K.S. SIVAKUMAR, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. ------------------------------ B.A. No.4441 OF 2008 ------------------------------ Dated this the 5th day of August, 2008 O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Sections 498A and 34 of IPC. According to the prosecution, the 1st petitioner has physically and mentally harassed the defacto complainant, who is his wife, when she started questioning his illicit relationship with another woman. He also harassed her by telling that he will do away with her pet dog etc. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the 1st petitioner is absolutely innocent of the allegations made. He is working abroad and even before the marriage, he was having a job abroad. The marriage between the petitioner and the defacto complainant was on 07.07.2002 and he left India after a few days of the marriage. Thereafter, he came back to India in the year 2005. The allegation of illicit relationship is absolutely false. It is also submitted that he has been sending money to the defacto complainant on several occasions and she had also B.A.4441/2008 2 withdrawn Rs.1.5 lakhs from the joint account. The documents are also produced along with the petition to show that the property was purchased and he has been sending money to the defacto complainant. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the petitioners 2 to 4 are not accused in the case. This submission is recorded. But there are specific allegation against the 1st petitioner that he has an illicit relationship with a lady who is residing nearby and he used to go there during late night and on questioning, he used to assault the defacto complainant and harassed her mentally and physically. 5. The case was sent for settlement to the Lok Adalath but it was returned stating that there is no possibility of settlement between the parties. On hearing both sides, I am satisfied that there are serious allegations against the 1st petitioner and it may not be fit to grant anticipatory bail to the 1st petitioner only because he had been sending money without fail to the defacto complainant or that she had used the money. However, prayer for anticipatory bail by B.A.4441/2008 3 the petitioners 2 to 4 cannot be allowed, since they are not accused in the crime. The prayer for anticipatory bail by the 1st petitioner is rejected. The petition is disposed of accordingly. K.HEMA, JUDGE pac