IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA MONDAY, THE 12TH JULY 2010 / 21ST ASHADHA 1932 Bail Appl..No. 2527 of 2010() ----------------------------------------- (CRIME NO.455 OF 2008 OF NILAMBUR POLICE STATION, KOLLAM DISTRICT) PETITIONER/IST ACCUSED: ------------------------------------------ JIJUSON, S/O.SAMUEL, PALLIVADAKKETHIL, MUKKADA, MULAVANA, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.D.AJITHKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT: --------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, NILAMBUR. R1 & R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. V. TEKCHAND THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss K. HEMA, J. --------------------------- B.A. No. 2527 of 2010 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 12th day of July, 2010 O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offence is under Section 498 A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. According to prosecution, petitioner (A1) along with second and third accused, who are his mother and brother, harassed de facto complainant after the marriage and they also demanded Rs. 50,000/- from the de facto complainant on 14.01.2008 and assaulted her. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that the allegations made against petitioner are false. There was some difference of opinion, in connection with the allegation that the de facto complainant's uncle was having illicit relationship with petitioner's brother's wife. Second and third accused and petitioner's brother were assaulted by de facto complainant's uncle, when they went to him to ascertain the details about the allegation. This incident happened on 14.01.2008 and a complaint was also lodged. B.A. No. 2527 / 2010 2 4. Petitioner went abroad on 1.04.2008 and thereafter, de facto complainant was residing in the petitioner's house. Later, she left the house and filed a complaint on 05.08.2008, making false allegation against petitioner. This is only as a counter blast against the complaint made by petitioner's brother against de facto complainant's uncle, it is submitted. 5. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that second and third accused were arrested in this case. Petitioner is working abroad. He is not arrested so far. Charge sheet was laid. Thereafter, second accused, who is the mother of the petitioner, filed a complaint before the D.G.P. stating that the allegations made in the complaint are false etc. She also produced camera and the various photographs taken on 14.01.2008 at the de facto complainant's house and contended that the photographs will show that all the parties were on cordial terms on that day. Therefore, further investigation is now conducted by Dy.S.P. Crime detachment into the allegations. It is also submitted that the camera is sent for examination by the expert and the report is waited. B.A. No. 2527 / 2010 3 6. On hearing both sides, I ascertained whether petitioner is available in India. It is submitted by petitioner's counsel that petitioner is working abroad and he had no idea when the petitioner is coming to India. But, he vaguely submitted that petitioner may arrive by next month in India. It is need to say that a person, who is abroad and who is not even available in India cannot have any apprehension that he would be arrested in connection with this crime. Unless there is likelihood of imminent apprehension of arrest, anticipatory bail cannot be granted to petitioner. The crime was registered more than two years back. Petitioner has not co-operated with the investigation. The charge sheet was laid and thereafter also, he did not surrender before the court. Further investigation is being conducted and at this stage petitioner has filed this application for bail without even surrendering to the jurisdiction of this court. The allegations made in the complaint are serious in nature. As per the submissions made, the case was taken on file as C.C. 415/2008, after the completion of the investigation and filing of the charge. There can be no doubt that warrant would have been issued by the trial court to secure presence of petitioner. Taking all these B.A. No. 2527 / 2010 4 facts into consideration, I find that this is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. Petitioner has not made out any circumstances or ground to grant bail. 7. No further application for anticipatory bail by petitioner will be entertained by this court in this crime hereafter. Petition is dismissed. K. HEMA, JUDGE ln