IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA MONDAY, THE 9TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 20TH MAGHA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 7173 of 2008() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.283/2008 OF KATTAKKADA POLICE STATION PETITIONER/ ACCUSED 1 TO 4 ----------------------------------------------- 1. BIJU, S/O.SAIRUS, BIJU BHAVAN, NADUKANI, KARTTAIKODE, KATTAKKADA. 2. SARASAM, W/O.SAIRUS, BIJU BHAVAN, NADUKANI, KARTTAIKODE, KATTAKKADA. 3. YESUDASAN, S/O.SAIRUS, BIJU BHAVAN, NADUKANI, KARTTAIKODE, KATTAKKADA. 4. SUNILKUMAR, S/O.SAIRUS, BIJU BHAVAN, NADUKANI, KARTTAIKODE, KATTAKKADA. BY ADV. SRI.G.SUDHEER RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT -------------------------- 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 09/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K. HEMA, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= B.A. No.7173 of 2008 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this the 9th day of February, 2009 O R D E R Petition for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under sections 498A and 34 IPC. According to prosecution, 1st accused married de facto complainant's daughter and she was residing in the matrimonial house. She was harassed demanding more dowry by all the accused who are husband and his relatives. From 16-2-2008 onwards 1st accused's wife was missing and she had written a letter indicating that she was not interested in living because of the harassment from the husband and his family members, etc. 3. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that petitioners are innocent of the allegations made. They are husband, mother-in-law and brothers-in-law of the missing lady. The marriage was in the year 2003 and in 2004, 1st accused got a job as a Police Constable and they were living together for four years. A child is also born in the wedlock. She left the house with the child and and thereafter, she was missing. Though a writ petition was filed (for habeas corpus), no allegation of harassment was made against petitioners in the said petition. The present allegations are made only with a view to harass petitioners and hence, anticipatory bail may be granted, it is BA7173/09 -2- submitted. 4. This petition is opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that from 16-2-2008 onwards 1st accused's wife is missing. She was living with the 1st accused with the child. A letter was written by her in her own handwriting which indicates that she intend to die because of harassment, etc. It is not correct to say that there was no harassment from the side of petitioners. If there is no such incident no woman would act in this manner and leave the matrimonial house, particularly leaving the only child in her own parent's house. The investigation is going on. The interrogation of petitioners is essential for an effective investigation. The investigation is being conducted by the C.B.C.I.D. into the crime registered under the caption “woman missing”. It is also pointed out that in the writ petition in paragraph 3 (Annexure-G) it is clearly mentioned that husband and family members were harassing 1st accused's wife demanding more dowry and in order to escape from the harassment, she used to come to the parental house regularly and stay there in the night. 5. On hearing both sides, considering the nature of the allegations made and in the peculiar facts and circumstances, I BA7173/09 -3- am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail. I am satisfied that granting of anticipatory bail will adversely affect the investigation, since interrogation of petitioners will be essential for ascertaining the facts which are within their exclusive knowledge. 6. Hence, the following order is passed. 1) 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) No further application for anticipatory bail by petitioner in this crime will be entertained by this Court, since on the facts in this case, this Court ordered that this is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail and any order to the contrary in any subsequent anticipatory bail application will amount to review, which is impermissible in law. The petition is dismissed. K.HEMA, JUDGE. mn.