IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA WEDNESDAY, THE 11TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 22ND MAGHA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 7891 of 2008() ----------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN BA.6910/2007 .................... (CRIME NO.795/2008 OF CHAVARA POLICE STATION) PETITIONERS:ACCUSED: --------------------------------------------- 1. BRIJESH NAIR @ BIJU, AGED 31 YEARS, S/O.GNAGADHARAN PILLAI, BLAVATH VADAKKATHIL (KRISHNA BHAVAN) CHAVARA BRIDGE P.O., KOLLAM DISTRICT. 2. GANGADHARAN PILLAI, BLAVATH VADAKKATHIL (KRISHNA BHAVAN) CHAVARA BRIDGE P.O.,KOLLAM DISTRICT. 3. SANKARI AMMA, W/O GANGADHARAN PILLAI, BLAVATH VADAKKATHIL (KRISHNA BHAVAN) CHAVARA BRIDGE P.O.,KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.M.L.SURESH KUMAR RESPONDENT(S): STATE: --------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR.K.S.SIVAKUMAR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss K.HEMA, J. ----------------------------------------- B.A.No. 7891 of 2008 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 11th February, 2009 O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Sections 498A and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. According to prosecution, de facto complainant and first accused were married and at the time of marriage, Rs.3,00,000/- and 30 sovereigns of gold were given. Even on the date of marriage, complaints were made by petitioners alleging that the amount and the gold given were too low and they started harassing de facto complainant. Harassment continued and hence, she had to live separately from petitioners. 3. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that petitioners are living separately from each other in the light of an agreement. Annexure-2 is the agreement. Difference of opinion occurred only because de facto complainant aborted pregnancy without the knowledge of petitioners or the family BA.7891/08 2 members. As per the agreement, money given to de facto complainant was returned. 4. This petition is opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that as per the allegations made in the complaint, de facto complainant was harassed for money and dowry by all the accused even on the date of marriage. She was harassed alleging that the money and gold given were too low. This is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail, it is submitted. 5. On hearing both sides, in the nature of allegations made, I am satisfied that this is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. No special circumstance is made out to invoke provision under Section 438 Cr.P.C. Petitioners are bound to co-operate with the investigation. Hence, the following order is passed: (1) Petitioners shall surrender before the Magistrate Court concerned or the investigating officer forthwith and co- operate with the investigation. Whether they surrender or not, police is at liberty to arrest them and proceed in accordance with law. BA.7891/08 3 (2) No further application for anticipatory bail by petitioners in this crime will be entertained by this Court. Petition is dismissed. K.HEMA, JUDGE vgs.