IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA TUESDAY, THE 25TH MAY 2010 / 4TH JYAISHTA 1932 Bail Appl..No. 2250 of 2010() ---------------------------------------- CRIME NO. 42/2010 OF PERUMBAVOOR POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM DIST. .................... PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.3 ------------------------------------------- RIYAS, AGED 32 YEARS, S/O.LATE SRI.HAMEED CHERIPURAM HOUSE, THANDEKKAD, VENGOLA VILLAGE, MUDICKAL P.O. PERUMBAVOOR. BY ADV. SRI.M.A.ABDUL HAKHIM RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PERUMBAVOOR POLICE STATION, THROUGH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.M.S.BREEZ THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: tss K. HEMA, J. --------------------------- B.A. No. 2250 of 2010 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 25th day of May, 2010 O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Sections 498-A, 341, 323, 294(b) and 506(ii) read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. According to prosecution, petitioner is the husband of the de facto complainant and after marriage, he used to harass the de facto complainant mentally by demanding more dowry. He also misappropriated gold ornaments given at the time of marriage. Petitioner also married another woman and he started residing with her. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that petitioner's mother, brother-in-law and neighbour,who are accused Nos. 1, 2 and 4 were granted anticipatory bail by this Court. 4. This petition is opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that de facto complainant was subjected to harassment after the marriage and petitioner married another women and he is living separately from de facto complainant. 5. On hearing both sides, I find that granting of B.A. No. 2250 of 2010 2 anticipatory bail to co-accused by itself is not a ground to grant anticipatory bail to petitioner. As per the allegations made accused poured kerosene on de facto complainant's head and shouted to kill her. Neighbours intervened and she was taken to hospital. Petitioner has no explanation about the harassment on the de facto complainant on demand for dowry or for marrying another woman. Only because in the last incident, petitioner had not taken part. I do not think that this is a fit case to grant anticipatory bail, while considering the serious nature of the allegations made against him. Petition is dismissed. K. HEMA, JUDGE ln