IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA FRIDAY, THE 31ST OCTOBER 2008 / 9TH KARTHIKA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 6199 of 2008() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.763/2008 OF KOYILANDY POLICE STATION PETITIONER (S): ACCUSED: ---------------------------- 1. RAJEEVAN.K., S/O.NARAYANAN, AGED 34 YEARS, KANDIYIL HOUSE, EDAKKULAM P.O., MELOOR AMSOM, KOYILANDY TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. 2. BABU, S/O.NARAYANAN, AGED 30 YEARS, KANDIYIL HOUSE, EDAKKULAM P.O., MELOOR AMSOM, KOYILANDY TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. 3. SRUTHI, W/O.BABU, AGED 22 YEARS, KANDIYIL HOUSE, EDAKKULAM P.O., MELOOR AMSOM, KOYILANDY TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.R.SREEJITH RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT/STATE: --------------------------------- 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 31/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. --------------------------------------------- B.A.No.6199 of 2008 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 31st day of October, 2008 O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Sections 406, 498A and 34 IPC. According to prosecution, defacto complainant was married by first accused. Thereafter, his brother, who is second accused, was married to third accused. The brother's wife was given more gold ornaments than defacto complainant. The defacto complainant was given only 27 sovereigns of gold. Therefore, first accused started ill-treating and harassing defacto complainant, asking her to bring more gold ornaments. She was also physically and mentally harassed by him from his house and also from Gujarath where he was working. 3. The second and third accused also started ill treating her and harassing her on the same allegations and insisted that she should bring more money. It is also alleged that on one occasion, while she was residing with her husband in Gujarath, he attempted to kill herself and her son by poisoning. He had also physically assaulted her from there. Her father-in-law and BA No.6199/2008 2 mother-in-law used to rescue her whenever her husband used to assault her physically. Her husband also misappropriated 17 sovereigns of gold by selling it without her consent. He was also a drunkard. 4. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that first accused married the defacto complainant in May 2007 and there was no occasion for the parties to live together. Allegations made in the complaint were given up by her at the Lok Adalath and she came forward with another story and deviated from the allegations made in the complaint. It is also submitted that none of the facts stated by learned public prosecutor (which are recorded in paragraph 2 and 3 above) find a place in the complaint lodged by defacto complainant. A copy of the complaint was handed over to this Court for perusal. 5. Learned public prosecutor submitted that on considering the nature of allegations, this is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. There are specific allegations that defacto complainant was brutally assaulted by first accused and also attempted to commit murder defacto complainant and the son by administering poison, while they were staying with him in BA No.6199/2008 3 Gujarath. It is not correct to say that they had no occasion to live together. They lived together both in husband's house as well as in Gujarath, as revealed from complaint itself, it is submitted. The second and third accused also had joined with the first accused to harass the defacto complainant. It is also to be noted that defacto complainant did not make any allegation against the father-in-law and mother-in-law. On the other hand, she averred in the complaint that when her husband used to physically assaulted her, father-in-law and mother-in-law used to rescue her and she did not make any allegations against the parents in law. In the nature of allegations made anticipatory bail may not be granted, it is submitted. 6. On hearing both sides and on going through the complaint, I am satisfied that of the submissions made by the learned public prosecutor. All the facts stated by him (which are reproduced in paragraph 2 and 3) find place in the complaint itself. Even a plain reading will reveal this. Defacto complainant had specifically stated that her mother-in-law and father-in-law had rescued her when her husband used to assault her. The case was referred to Lok Adalath and it is observed by the Lok BA No.6199/2008 4 Adalath as follows: “Heard parties and counsel on both sides. They are reluctant to budge from their respective positions. Accordingly, we are of the opinion that no settlement is possible in the Adalath proceedings”. 7. Taking all these facts into consideration, particularly, nature of allegations made, I am satisfied that this is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. No circumstance or fact is pointed out to grant anticipatory bail to petitioner. The complaint was registered as early on 18.9.2008 and petitioners were not available for interrogation and investigation for the past more than 1½ months. Hence, petitioners are directed to surrender before the Investigating Officer within ten days from today and co-operate with the investigation. With this direction, this petition is dismissed. K.HEMA, JUDGE csl