IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA THURSDAY, THE 8TH JANUARY 2009 / 18TH POUSHA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 7728 of 2008() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.908/08 OF KASARGOD POLICE STATION ........................ PEITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 TO 3 --------------------------------- 1. B.GANESHKUMAR, AGED 27 YEARS, S/O.PANDURANGA, BALANGADDE HOUSE, MALLIGE MADU, CHITHARI VILLAGE, 2. B.PANDURANGA, AGED 61 YEARS, BELAGADDE HOUSE, MALLIGE MADU, CHITHARI VILLAGE. 3. SADHANA, AGED 48 YEARS, W/O.NARAYANAN, MEEPUGURI, KASARAGOD. BY ADV. SMT.T.SUDHAMANI RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT ------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA REP.BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.M.S. BREEZ. THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K. HEMA, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - B.A. No. 7728 OF 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 8th day of January, 2009 O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Sections 498(A), 406, 506 (1) r/w 34 IPC. According to prosecution, the first accused married the defacto complainant and thereafter he misappropriated the gold ornaments and Rs.75,000/- given at the time of marriage. Demands were made for more money and dowry and she was harassed by the petitioners who are accused Nos.1 to 3. The 2nd accused is the father of the 1st accused and the 3rd accused is the marriage broker and she is a woman. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the marriage between the 1st petitioner and the defacto complainant was solemnized on 11.11.07 and the defacto complainant was insisting that the petitioner should reside in the defacto complainant's parental house, for which the 1st accused was not willing. This is the only reason for the disharmony in the relationship. 1st accused has sent a reply to the notice sent on behalf of the defacto complainant. The petitioners may be granted anticipatory bail, it is submitted. BA No. 7728/08 -:2:- 3. learned Public Prosecutor submitted that against 2nd and 3rd accused there are only general allegations. But against 1st accused there are specific allegations of matrimonial cruelty. Learned Public Prosecutor has no objection in granting bail to 2nd and 3rd accused. But the prayer made by the 1st accused is opposed. On hearing both sides, I am satisfied that anticipatory bail can be granted to 2nd and 3rd accused but the prayer for anticipatory bail by the 1st accused can only be rejected, considering the nature of the allegations made. Hence, the following order is passed : (i) The prayer for anticipatory bail by the 1st petitioner is rejected. (ii) Petitioners 2 and 3 shall surrender before the Magistrate concerned, within 7 days from today and they shall be released on bail on executing bond for Rs.25,000/- with two solvent sureties each for like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate on the following conditions : (i) They shall report before the BA No. 7728/08 -:3:- Investigating Officer as and when directed and co-operate with the investigation. (ii) They shall not influence or intimidate any witnesses or commit any offence while on bail. The petition is partly allowed. K. HEMA, JUDGE ttb