IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA TUESDAY, THE 13TH JANUARY 2009 / 23RD POUSHA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 51 of 2009() --------------------------- CRIME NUMBER NOT KNOWN PETITIONER:- ------------------------------ P.S.RAJESH, AGED 33, S/O.SURENDRAN NAIR, SREYAS, VADAYMPADY.P.O., PUTHENCRUZ, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.C.P.UDAYABHANU RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT -------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE S.I. OF POLICE, VANITHA, POLICE STATION, CALICUT CITY, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI K.S.SIVAKUMAR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K. HEMA, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= B.A. No. 51 of 2009 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this the 13th day of January,2009 O R D E R Petition for anticipatory bail. 2. According to prosecution, petitioner married de facto complainant on 18-4-2000 and when they were living together, the accused harassed de facto complainant, physically and mentally. Petitioner is 1st accused and as per the allegation, he is a drunkard and also a drug addict. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that petitioner and de facto complainant are residing separately for the past more than one year and a petition for divorce was filed as O.P. 602/2008 before the family Court by petitioner. It is only after receiving the notice from the Family Court by de facto complainant that the present complaint is filed, at a belated stage. This itself indicates that the allegation is made only as a counter blast to the divorce petition. 4. This petition is opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that there are specific allegations against petitioner who is 1st accused that he physically and mentally harassed de facto complainant. The mere delay will not be sufficient to hold that petitioner has not committed any offence. Learned Public Prosecutor also pointed out that as per the allegations in the BA 51/09 -2- complaint, petitioner remarried a woman by name Kavitha and ill-treated de facto complainant. Hence, it is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail, it is submitted. 5. On hearing both sides, I am satisfied of the submissions made by learned Public Prosecutor. In a case of this nature, when serious allegations are made, I find that it is not fit to grant anticipatory bail. The crime was registered as early as on 17-12-2008 and petitioner is not available for investigation. Hence, petitioner is directed to surrender before the Magistrate court concerned or 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. With this direction, this petition is dismissed. K.HEMA, JUDGE. mn.