IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA THURSDAY, THE 23RD OCTOBER 2008 / 1ST KARTHIKA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 6535 of 2008() ----------------------------- (CRIME NO.280/2008 OF CHANDERA POLICE STATION) PETITIONER/ ACCUSED NO.1: --------------------------------- NADEER.C, AGED 27 YEARS, S/O.MAHAMOOD, CHEKKALATHIL HOUSE, PUTHIYANGADI, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SMT.T.SUDHAMANI RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT; --------------------------- STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.K.S. SIVAKUMAR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K. HEMA, J. --------------------------------------------------- Bail Appl.No. 6535 of 2008 --------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 23rd day of October, 2008. ORDER Petition for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Sections 498(A) read Section 34 of IPC. According to prosecution, the de facto complainant was married by the petitioner on 21.6.2007. Rs. 2 lakhs and 50 sovereigns were given at the time of marriage. These were taken by the petitioner and thereafter he demanded Rs. 2 lakhs more for going to Gulf country. Since this was not paid, de facto complainant was beaten up. Thereafter, he pledged the gold ornaments and went to Gulf. He came back and though the de facto complainant gave birth to a child he did not even go to see the child. The de facto complainant, in such circumstances, filed the complaint. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the marriage was on 21.6.2007 and petitioner had left for Dubai on 13.7.2007 and for the naming ceremony of the child he had sent gold ornaments worth Rs. 23000/-. There was no quarrel [B.A.No.6535/08] 2 between the couple but the present complaint is filed only because the relationship between the petitioner's family and de facto complainant's family got strained because of another incident. A camera was borrowed by the petitioner's relatives from the de facto complainant's neighbour and it was damaged and it could not be returned. Therefore, de facto complainant's mother came to petitioner's house and had quarrel with them. Thereafter the complaint is filed. The petitioner is absolutely innocent of the allegations made, it is submitted. 4. This petition is opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the allegations made against the petitioner are serious and, on such allegations, it may not be proper to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. As per the allegations, the petitioner has not even gone to see the child after the delivery. 5. On hearing both sides, I am satisfied that this is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail, taking into consideration the nature of allegations made. Though a defence is set up there is only bare assertions without any materials to support it. Within a period of one year of the marriage, de facto complainant filed a complaint under section 498A against the husband and others. But there is no plausible explanation for filing such complaint. [B.A.No.6535/08] 3 6. The crime was registered as early as registered as early as on 18.8.2008 and the petitioner was not available for arrest. Hence, petitioner is directed to surrender before the investigating officer within 7 days from today and co- operate with the investigation. With this direction, this petition is dismissed. K. HEMA, JUDGE. Krs.