IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT THURSDAY, THE 28TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 9TH PHALGUNA 1929 Bail Appl..No. 821 of 2008() ---------------------------- CRIME NO.35/08 OF THE ADHUR POLICE STATION PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS. 1 TO 3 ------------------------------------------------ 1. ABOOBACKER, S/O.ABDUL KHADER, AGED 37 YEARS, THOTTATHIL HOUSE, NEKRAJE, KASARAGODE TALUK. 2. ABDUL KHADER, AGED 70 YEARS, THOTTATHIL HOUSE, NEKRAJE, KASARAGODE TALUK. 3. AYISHA, W/O.ABDUL KHADER, THOTTATHIL HOUSE, NEKRAJE, KASARAGODE TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.SUNNY MATHEW RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT ------------------------ STATE OF KERALA THROUGH THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ADHUR POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. JAI GEORGE. THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. ------------------------------------------------- B.A. No. 821 of 2008 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 28th day of February, 2008 ORDER Application for anticipatory bail. The petitioners face allegations in a crime registered under Sec.498A of the IPC. The marriage between the spouses took place on 29/10/07. The crime has been registered on the basis of a private complaint filed by the de facto complainant and referred to the police by the learned Magistrate under Sec.156(3) of the Cr.P.C. The de facto complainant claims to be a graduate. Inter alia, an allegation is raised that the petitioners have cruelly retained the certificates showing the educational qualification of the de facto complainant in an attempt to deny her opportunities for employment and to coerce her to accept the dictates of the petitioners. 2. The learned Public Prosecutor, in the course of initial B.A. No. 821 of 2008 -: 2 :- discussions, asserted that the State shall not oppose the application on condition that the documents be returned to the de facto complainant. Time was taken. But it is now asserted that no documents are available. The Case Diary reveals that even after the said order, the de facto complainant was contacted by the accused and she was threatened that the certificates shall be burnt down and shall not be returned unless she withdrew the complaint. 3. The learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposes the application now. The learned Public Prosecutor submits that custodial interrogation of the petitioners is absolutely necessary in an attempt to trace the documents which are being cruelly retained by the petitioners. 4. Having considered all the relevant inputs – the Case Diary has been placed before me for my perusal and I have perused the same, I am satisfied that, in the facts and circumstances of this case, there is absolutely no justification for the prayer for invocation of the extraordinary equitable discretion under Sec.438 of the Cr.P.C. I find merit in the request of the learned Public Prosecutor that the petitioners B.A. No. 821 of 2008 -: 3 :- have got to be interrogated and attempt made to recover the documents retained by the petitioners. 5. This bail application is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- (R. BASANT, JUDGE) Nan/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge