IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA MONDAY, THE 16TH JUNE 2008 / 26TH JYAISHTA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 3805 of 2008() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.384/08 OF KASARAGOD POLICE STATION PETITIONERS/ ACCUSED NOS. 1& 2 ----------------------------------------------- 1. SHANAVAS.A.M, AGED 26 YEARS, S/O.ABDULLA MUHAMMED KALLANGADI KUBHA PALACE, NELKALA, KASARAGOD TALUK, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. 2. RAIHANATH, AGED 46 YEARS, W/O.ABDULLA MOHAMMED KALLANGADI KUBHA PALACE, NELKALA KASARAGOD TALUK, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.SASINDRAN SRI.K.P.HARISH RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT & STATE -------------------------------- 1. STATE-REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, (CRIME.NO. 384 OF 2008 OF KASARAGOD POLICE STATION), KASARAGOD DISTRICT. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI.K.S.SIVAKUMAR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. ----------------------------------------- B.A.No. 3805 of 2008 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 16th day of June, 2008 O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. Petitioners are the husband and the mother-in-law of the defacto complainant. According to the defacto complainant, the first petitioner married her on 31.8.2008 and a child was born in the wedlock. Ever since the marriage, the first petitioner was demanding money from the defacto complainant's father, who is a P.W.D contractor and every demand was heeded to and huge amount of money was advanced to the first petitioner, in addition to the dowry given at the time of marriage including a car. 3. Defacto complainant's father was even forced to take a loan for obliging the son-in-law on condition that the first petitioner will pay the instalments, it is submitted. Since the defacto complainant could not comply with the subsequent demands made, petitioners started harassing the defacto complainant physically and mentally. She was driven out of the house and she is living separately from the petitioners. Several specific instances are referred to in the complaint. It is also alleged in the complaint that the first petitioner has sent two strangers to the house of the defacto complainant to take away the child. BA.3805/08 2 4. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that this complaint is a counter blast to the notice issued on behalf of the first petitioner demanding restitution of conjugal rights. Petitioners are innocent of the allegations made. This petition is opposed as far as the first petitioner is concerned. However, it is submitted that the request by the second petitioner may be allowed on conditions. 5. On hearing both sides, I am satisfied that the relief may not be granted to the first petitioner. But, anticipatory bail can be granted to the second petitioner and the following order is passed: i) The prayer for anticipatory bail by the first petitioner is rejected. ii) The respondent is directed to release the second petitioner in the event of her arrest on her executing a bond for Rs.25,000/- with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the arresting officer, on condition that she shall co-operate with the investigation and appear before the investigating officer as and when directed. This petition is partly allowed. K.HEMA, JUDGE vgs.