IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN FRIDAY, THE 11TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 20TH KARTHIKA 1933 Bail Appl..No. 7032 of 2011() ---------------------------------- (CRIME NO.1051/2011 OF THIRUVALLA POLICE STATION) ..... PETITIONER/ACCUSED 1, 2 AND 3. ----------------------------------------- 1. BINOD ABRAHAM @ BINU, THYKADAVIL, THENGELI P.O., KUTTOOR, THIRUVALLA. 2. NIRMALA ABRAHAM, W/O.A.P.ABRAHAM, ETTONNIL HOUSE, NEAR RAILWAY OVERBRIDGE, KALLISSERRY, CHENGANNOOR. 3. A.P.ABRAHAM, ETTONNIL HOUSE, NEAR RAILWAY OVERBRIDGE, KALLISSERRY, CHENGANNOOR. BY ADV. SRI.SABU S.KALLARAMOOLA RESPONDENT(S):COMPLAINANT -------------------------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. * ADDL. R2 IMPLEADED 2. NISHA BINOD, AGED 30 YEARS, W/O. BINOD ABRAHAM, THYKADAVIL HOUSE, THENGELI, KUTTOOR VILLAGE, THIRUVALLA. * R2 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 10/11/2011 IN CRL. MA. NO.5890/2011 R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.R.RANJITH R2 BY ADV. SRI.S.RAJEEV THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: svs K.T.SANKARAN, J. --------------------------------------------- Bail Appln.No.7032 of 2011 ---------------------------------------------- Dated this the 11th day of November, 2011 ORDER This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioners are accused Nos.1 to 3 in Crime No.1051 of 2011 of Thiruvalla Police Station. 2. The offence alleged against the petitioners is under Section 498-A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. When the Bail Application came up for admission an interim order not to arrest the petitioner was passed on 24/08/2011. Later, on 02nd September, 2011, the following order was passed:- “It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners as well as the de facto complainant that if the matter is posted before the Mediation Centre, there is every likelihood of settlement of the disputes. Post before the Mediation Centre. 2. There will be an interim direction not to arrest the petitioners in connection with the Crime, till the matter is considered before the Mediation Centre.” Bail Appln.No.7032/2011 : 2 : 4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the de facto complainant that, though the de facto complainant appeared, the petitioners did not appear. Accordingly, the bail application came up for hearing. 5. When the Bail Application was taken up, the learned counsel for the petitioners sought permission to withdraw the bail application. The learned counsel appearing for the de facto complainant submitted that a petition for restitution for conjugal rights was filed by the de facto complainant and she very much would like to continue the marital relationship. It is also submitted that she does not want to see her husband to be put in jail. 6. Having obtained an interim order directing the parties to appear before the Mediation Centre, the petitioners left India without showing the courtesy to inform the Court. It is to be presumed that they filed this Bail Application and got the interim order only to remain in India for some time and thereafter to go abroad. Therefore, I am of the view that the petitioners cannot be allowed to withdraw the bail application. As held in Saudabeevi Vs. State : 2011 (4) KLT 52 = 2011 Bail Appln.No.7032/2011 : 3 : (3) KHC 795, a person cannot remain abroad and prosecute a bail application for anticipatory bail without coming to India. Therefore the petitioners have no right to prosecute the bail application. They did not appear before the Mediation Centre. They did not inform the Court about their intention to go abroad. The Bail Application is accordingly dismissed. K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE skj