IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA WEDNESDAY, THE 5TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 14TH KARTHIKA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 6720 of 2008() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.741/2008 OF KASARAGOD POLICE STATION PETITIONERS: ACCUSED --------------------------- 1. DAMODARAN, AGED 58 YEARS, S/O. ANNU, R/AT PARAKILA HOUSE, NEAR PARAKILA TEMPLE, MADHUR VILLAGE, KASARAGOD. 2. SASIKALA.D, AGED 35 YEARS, W/O. SUKUMARAN, R/AT PARAHILA HOUSE, NEAR PARAKILA TEMPLE, MADHUR VILLAGE, KASARAGOD. 3. PRAMEELA.D, W/O.G.V. KRISHNAN, R/AT NEAR BY PADDY BHAGAVATHY TEMPLE,. PADDY VILLAGE, KASARAGOD. 4. G.V. KRISHNAN, AGED 40 YEARS, S/O. KOTTAN BALACHANDRAN, R/AT NEAR BY PADDY BHAGAVATHY TEMPLE, PADDY VILLAGE, KASARAGOD. BY ADV. SRI.KODOTH SREEDHARAN RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT -------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, THROUGH STATION HOUSE OFFICER, KASARAGOD POLICE STATION, REP. BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. PREMA SHALINI, AGED 28 YEARS, W/O. NAGESH, R/AT PREM NIVAS, BEHIND CPI (M) DISTRICT COMMITTEE OFFICE, VIDYANAGAR, KASARAGOD. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.M.S.BREEZ THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. --------------------------------------------- B.A.No.6720 of 2008 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 5th November, 2008 O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Sections 498(A), 506 (ii) and 34 IPC. According to prosecution, defacto complainant was harassed by relatives of her husband, demanding more dowry and on 18.10.2008, there was a quarrel in the house and A1 poured kerosene on her body and when she made a hue and cry, people of the locality intervened and she escaped. The other accused supported her. A1 is the brother-in-law. A2 and A3 are sister-in-laws of the defacto complainant. A4 is the husband of her sister-in-law. It is also alleged that second accused was having an illicit affair with a person and she was caught red- handed and the family members believe that the defacto complainant was instrumental for the same. This is also a reason for harassing the defacto complainant. 3. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that kerosene was only poured and she was not set fire to, as per the BA No. 6720/2008 2 allegations. It is also submitted that this is a counter blast to another case. A2 filed a case against her own husband and defacto complainant's husband and that is why this complaint is filed. It is also submitted that there is a chance for settlement and therefore, anticipatory bail may be granted to the petitioners. 4. This petition is opposed. Learned public prosecutor submitted that allegations made against petitioners are serious. Petitioners harassed defacto complainant and there was also a specific reason for harassing her. Defacto complainant did not make any complaint against her husband. It is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail, it is submitted. 5. On hearing both sides, on consideration of the nature of allegations made, I am satisfied that it is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. Though learned counsel would submit that a case was filed against defacto complainant's husband and the husband of the second accused and that this case is a counter blast, it is not clarified as to what are the allegations made, whether it is a civil case or a criminal case etc. There is only a bald assertion that a case was filed and this is a counter blast. BA No. 6720/2008 3 In such circumstances, I find absolutely no reason to grant anticipatory bail. Crime is registered on 21.10.2008 and petitioners are not available for interrogation and investigation. Hence, petitioners are directed to surrender before the Investigating Officer without any delay and co-operate with the investigation. Whether they surrendered or not, police is at liberty to arrest them at any time. With this direction, this petition is dismissed. K.HEMA, JUDGE csl