IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA FRIDAY, THE 26TH SEPTEMBER 2008 / 4TH ASWINA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 5343 of 2008(A) ------------------------------------- CRIME NO.315/2008 OF KANJAR POLICE STATION PETITIONER/ ACCUSED : ----------------------------- AJO.K.JOSEPH, AGED 28 YEARS, KOCHEEKKARAN HOUSE, PATHIRAPPILLY.P.O, CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.S.SHANAVAS KHAN RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT : ------------------------------------- THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.K.S.SIVAKUMAR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. ------------------------------------------------- B.A.No.5343 of 2008 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 26th day of September, 2008 O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offence is under Section 498(A) IPC. According to prosecution, petitioner and the defacto complainant got married as per the Penthacostal rights. The petitioner was a Roman Catholic and the defacto complainant was a member of the scheduled caste, originally, but, they followed Penthacostal belief, before their marriage. At the time of marriage, Rs.60,000/- was given to the petitioner and he spent the same. Thereafter, he started demanding more money. He went to Sharjah and came back and again started demanding money. After the marriage, when they were living together, he started harassing stating that she is not beautiful, she is elder to him, she belongs to a scheduled caste etc. This harassment continued even over phone while he was at Sharjah. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the marriage between the petitioner and the defacto complainant BA No.5343/08 2 was on 28.10.2007 and they were lived together only for 28 days. Being a believer of Penthacostal principles, petitioner does not believe in demanding dowry and he has not made any demands for dowry. But, the defacto complainant married the petitioner believing that he is affluent. But, after the marriage, she came to understand that he is not so affluent as she expected. 4. Therefore, there was a withdrawal by the defacto complainant as well as the family members from the petitioner. The allegation that he demanded money etc. is not correct. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that the defacto complainant abandoned him and the efforts taken by him to get her back were futile. He was, therefore, forced to reconvert as a Catholic and even though the case was referred to Lok Adalath, it could not settled at Lok Adalath. 5. This petition is opposed. Learned public prosecutor submitted that there was a demand for dowry. Though for the wedding, no such demand was made, according to the defacto complainant, Rs.60,000/- was given to the petitioner at the time of marriage as pocket money. After he left for Sharjah, he started demanding Rs.5 lakhs as dowry and threatened her that BA No.5343/08 3 he will divorce her in case he did not bring the money. She was also mentally harassed in so many ways as stated by her in detail. 6. After hearing both sides, it is clear that the marriage lasted only for 28 days and the parties are living separately from each other. Though an attempt was made by the Lok Adalath to settle the issues, it could not be settled even at the Lok Adalath. It also appears that the defacto complainant is not employed and the petitioner has no case that he was sending any money regularly for maintenance of the defacto complainant. 7. Taking all the facts to consideration, I find that an order can be passed which will by protect the interest of both sides. Hence, the following order is passed: (i) Petitioner shall surrender before the Investigating Officer within seven days from today and make himself available for interrogation and in case, he is arrested, he shall be released on bail on his executing bond for Rs.25,000/- with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the trial court on BA No.5343/08 4 the following conditions: (i) Petitioner shall report before the Investigating Officer as and when directed and co-operate with the investigation. (ii) Petitioner shall not influence or intimidate any witness or commit any offence while on bail. (iii) Petitioner shall deposit Rs.25,000/- before the Magistrate Court within one month from the date of this order towards maintenance of the petitioner which the defacto complainant will be free to withdraw towards maintenance. (iv) Petitioner shall also surrender his passport before the Magistrate Court within seven days from today. The petition is allowed. K.HEMA, JUDGE csl