IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA WEDNESDAY, THE 5TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 14TH KARTHIKA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 6418 of 2008() ----------------------------- CC.856/2007 IN CRIME NO.73/05 OF KADAKKAL POLICE STATION .................... PETITIONER (S): 3RD ACCUSED ----------------------------------------------- MR.MUHAMMED IBRAHIM, S/O.KASIM KUNJU, AGED 57, SHEEJA MANZIL, KOTTUKAL VILLAGE, MANJAPARA, KOTTARAKARA TALUK, KOLLAM-DIST. BY ADV. SRI.M.ZIYAD RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT & STATE ----------------------------------------------------------- 1. SHANIFA, D/O.SAKARIYA BEEVI, SHAMANZIL, ITTIVA VILLAGE, VATTATHAMALA, KOTTARAKARA TALUK, KOLLAM-DIST. 2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KADAKKAL POLICE STATION, KOLLAM-DIST.REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 3. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOLLAM-DIST,REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.M.S.BREEZ THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. --------------------------------------------- B.A.No.6418 of 2008 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 5th November, 2008 O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. According to prosecution, defacto complainant was married by petitioner and after marriage, he along with his family members, in furtherance of common intention, treated her with cruelty by making demand for more dowry etc. and she filed a complaint alleging offences under Sections 498A and 34 IPC. 3. Petitioner is the third accused. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that second accused, who is his brother, stood trial and as per judgment dated 6.1.2007 in C.C.No.553/05, he was acquitted, since the defacto complainant deviated from her stand and denied allegations made by her in the complaint. She turned hostile to the prosecution. Her mother PW2 also did not support the prosecution and she was treated as hostile, since the matter was settled out of court. 4. It is also submitted that when the complaint was filed, he was abroad in connection with his employment. Even as per the allegations in the complaint, he was harassing her by making BA No.6418/2008 2 telephone calls. But, petitioner was shown as an absconding accused when the charge was filed though he was not actually absconding. The case against him was split and warrant is being issued against petitioner as he was shown as an absconding accused. Petitioner is required for arrest on accusation of a non-bailable offence and he apprehends that he will be detained, especially since he was shown as an absconding accused. Learned counsel for petitioner also submitted that the defacto complainant got remarried and she is settled in Mumbai. 5. On hearing both sides, I am satisfied that petitioner apprehends arrest and dentition on accusation of having committed a non-bailable offence, since he was shown as an absconding accused only because he was not available during investigation since he was working abroad at the time of filing of the complaint. On consideration of the facts and circumstances, I am also satisfied that anticipatory bail can be granted to petitioner. Hence, the following order is passed: Petitioner shall surrender before the Magistrate Court within seven days from today and he shall be released BA No.6418/2008 3 on bail on his executing bond for Rs.25,000/- with two solvent sureties each for like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate. The petition is allowed. K.HEMA, JUDGE csl