IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA MONDAY, THE 17TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 26TH KARTHIKA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 5443 of 2008() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.159/2008 OF ADHUR POLICE STATION, KASARGOD PETITIONERS-ACCUSED:- ---------------------------------------- 1. H.SURESH, SON OF VARADARAJ, FIAT NEAR BHARATH BEEDI WORK, KARATTU VAYAL,KANHANGAD P.O., KASARGOD. 2. KAMALA H, WIFE OF VARADARAJ DO.... BY ADV. SRI.V.G.ARUN SRI.T.R.HARIKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI K.S.SIVAKUMAR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K. HEMA, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - B.A. No. 5443 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 17th day of November,2008 O R D E R Petition for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under sections 323, 498A read with section 34 IPC. According to prosecution, 1st accused is husband of de facto complainant. 12.5 sovereigns of gold ornaments and Rs.50,000/- which were given at the time of marriage were misappropriated by 1st accused. He, thereafter, demanded more money and gold. De facto complainant was physically and mentally harassed by petitioners and hence, she field a complaint against petitioners who are husband and mother-in-law respectively. 3. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that petitioners are absolutely innocent of the allegations made. They are working as an autorickshaw driver and maid servant respectively. The 1st accused married de facto complainant on 20- 3-2005, and a child was born in the wedlock on 18-4-2007. Thereafter, they were living together till 5-8-2008, and the allegations made against them are absolutely false. First petitioner is prepared to look after the wife and child, but de facto BA 5443/2008 2 complainant is not co-operating. Though this case was referred to Lok Adalath at High Court, de facto complainant did not turn up and hence, anticipatory bail may be granted, it is submitted. . 4. Learned Public Prosecutor opposed this petition. He submitted that after misappropriating the gold and money given at the time of marriage, 1st accused has been demanding Rs.50,000/- more and 10 sovereigns of gold ornaments also. As per the allegations, de facto complainant was not given proper food and clothing at the time when she was residing with the 1st accused. Even after she became pregnant, she was beaten up by him and after the delivery, he did not even turn up. It is only after several mediations, she was taken back to matrimonial house after delivery. She was also neglected by 1st accused. Learned Public Prosecutor, however, submitted that only general allegations made against 2nd petitioner and he has no objection in granting anticipatory bail to 2nd petitioner. 5. On hearing both sides, on considering the nature of allegations made, I find that it is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail to 1st petitioner. There is nothing to show that 1st petitioner gave any maintenance to the wife and child, after de facto complainant left the matrimonial house, though he would BA 5443/2008 3 claim that he is prepared to take them back. Crime was registered as early as on 30-8-2008 and petitioners were not available for interrogation. 6. In the above circumstances, the following order is passed:- (1) First petitioner shall surrender before the Investigating Officer without any delay and co- operate with the investigation. Whether he surrenders or not, police is at liberty to arrest him and proceed in accordance with law. (2) Second petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer within seven days from today and in the event of her arrest, she shall be released on bail, on her executing a bond for Rs. 25,000/- with two solvent sureties each, for the like amount, to the satisfaction of the arresting officer, on the following conditions:- i) She shall co-operate with the investigation and report before the Investigating Officer as and when directed. BA 5443/2008 4 ii) She shall not intimidate or influence any witness or commit any offence while on bail. This petition is partly allowed. K.HEMA, JUDGE. mn.