IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA WEDNESDAY, THE 11TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 22ND MAGHA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 507 of 2009() ---------------------------- CRMP.70/2009 of DISTRICT COURT, KASARAGOD .................... (CRIME NO.715/2008 OF HOSDURG POLICE STATION) PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NO.1 TO 3: ------------------------------------------------------- 1. NAFEESA, AGED 55 YRS, W/O.LATE MUHAMMED KUNHI,PUZHAKKARA HOUSE, KANDATHIL, KALLURAVI,P.O.KANHANGAD SOUTH. 2. P.NASEEMA, AGED 26 YEARS, W/O.ABDUL HAMEED PUZHAKKARA HOUSE,KANDATHIL, KALLURAVI, P.O.KANHANGAD SOUTH. 3. K.ABDULKAREEM, AGED 36 YRS, S/O.K.AHAMMED, AMINA MANZIL, KALLURAVI, P.O.KANHANGAD SOUTH. BY ADV. SMT.T.SUDHAMANI RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT: ---------------------------------------------------- THE STATE OF KERALA REP.BY P.PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR.K.S.SIVAKUMAR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss K.HEMA, J. ----------------------------------------- B.A.No. 507 of 2009 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 11th February, 2009 O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offence is under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. According to prosecution, petitioner harassed de facto complainant by physically and mentally by demanding more money etc. Petitioners 1 and 2 are mother-in- law and sister-in-law of de facto complainant. Third accused is first accused's sister's son. 3. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that de facto complainant has not made any complaint against her husband, but the complaint is against the relatives of the husband. This complaint is given at the instigation of de facto complainant's husband because of property dispute. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the petition and contended that as per the allegations in the complaint and the nature of allegations made, there was physical torture as well from the hands of petitioners and this is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. BA.507/09 2 5. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that the incident happened on 10.10.2008 and the complaint is made only on 21.10.2008. 6. Learned Public Prosecutor pointed out that as per the allegations, harassment is a continuing process and it cannot be said that the complaint is belated. It is also submitted that de facto complainant's husband is a driver and he comes home only once in a week and hence she has no complaint against her husband. 7. On hearing both sides, considering the nature of allegations made in the complaint, I am satisfied that this is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. Petitioners are bound to surrender before the Magistrate Court or the investigating officer and co-operate with the investigation. Hence the following order is passed: (1) Petitioners shall surrender before the Magistrate Court concerned or the investigating officer forthwith and co- operate with the investigation. Whether they surrender or not, police is at liberty to arrest them and proceed in accordance with law. BA.507/09 3 (2) No further application for anticipatory bail by petitioners in this crime will be entertained by this Court. Petition is dismissed. K.HEMA, JUDGE vgs.