IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA FRIDAY, THE 13TH JUNE 2008 / 23RD JYAISHTA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 3793 of 2008() ----------------------------- CRIME NO. 303/2008 OF CHADAYAMANGALAM POLICE STATION PETITIONERS/ACCUSED ------------------------------------ 1. ABEY K. JOSE, S/O. KUNJU KUNJU JOSEPH, THUNDIL ABEY BHAVAN, AYOOR MURI, EDAMULACKAL VILLAGE, KOTTARAKKARA. 2. KUNJU KUNJU JOSEPH, THUNDIL ABEY BHAVAN, AYOOR MURI, EDAMULACKEL VILLAGE, KOTTARAKKARA. 3. THANKAMMA, W/O. KUNJU KUNJU JOSEPH, THUNDIL ABEY BHAVAN, AYOOR MURI, EDAMULACKAL VILLAGE, KOTTARAKKARA. 4. SHIBI K. JOSE, ALUMVILA VEEDU, ODANAVATTOM.P.O, KOTTARAKKARA. BY ADV. SRI.ALEXANDER GEORGE RESPONDENT: RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT ----------------------------------- S.I. OF POLICE, CHADAYAMANGALAM POLICE STATION, KOLLAM DT. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.K.S.SIVAKUMAR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K. HEMA, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - B.A.No. 3793 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 13th day of June, 2008 O R D E R Application for anticipatory bail. 2. Petitioners are accused in the crime registered under sections 498A read with section 34 IPC. Petitioners 2, 3 and 4 are the father-in-law, mother-in-law and sister-in-law of the defacto-complainant. They physically and mentally harassed the defacto-complainant after the marriage demanding dowry and the defacto-complainant lived in the petitioners' house only for a period of 70 days. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, defacto- complainant and the learned Public Prosecutor. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the parties are living separately since 10-11-2005 and the marriage was conducted on 1-8- 2005. According to the petitioners, the defacto-complainant is having some mental problem and she was treated for the problem at various hospitals. Therefore, the marriage broke within a few days and the 1st petitioner, who came to know that the defacto-complainant is mentally sick, filed a petition for divorce before the Family Court. On coming to know about such BA 3793/08 -2- petition, a false complaint is filed, it is submitted. 5. The application is opposed. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that there are allegations even against the father-in-law in making physically some sexual overtures towards the defacto-complainant and she had complained to her husband about it. 6. The learned counsel for the defacto-complainant stated that the marriage broke only because of the harassment from the petitioners and there is no evidence to show that the defacto complainant is mentally sick. 7. On hearing both sides and in the absence of any material to substantiate the contentions raised by the petitioners, I find that prayer for anticipatory bail by petitioners 1 and 2 cannot be granted. However, regarding the 3rd and 4th petitioners, mother-in-law and sister-in-law, the learned Public Prosecutor has no objection in granting anticipatory bail on conditions. 8. Hence, the following orders can be passed:- 1. Request for anticipatory bail by the 1st and 2nd petitioner is rejected. 2.Petitioners 3 and 4 shall surrender before the Investigating Officer within one week from today and make themselves available for interrogation. BA 3793/08 -3- 3. If the petitioners 3 and 4 are arrested, they shall be released on bail on their executing a bond for Rs.25,000/- each with solvent sureties each for the like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting officer on condition that they shall shall co-operate with the investigation and appear before the Investigating Officer as and when directed. The application is partly allowed. K. HEMA, JUDGE. mn.