IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA MONDAY, THE 1ST DECEMBER 2008 / 10TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 7168 of 2008() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.828/08 OF NEDUMANGAD POLICE STATION PETITIONER/ IST ACCUSED ------------------------------------------- SANTHOSH KUMAR, AGED 39 YEARS, S/O VISWANATHAN, KAVUVILA VEEDU, KALATHUKAL, KARUKULAM.P.O, TRIVANDRUM. BY ADV. SRI.T.A.UNNIKRISHNAN SRI.K.SATHEESH KUMAR RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT -------------------------- STATE OF KERALA REP.BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI.M.S.BREEZE THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. ----------------------------------------- B.A.No. 7168 of 2008 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 2nd December, 2008 O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Sections 498A, 326 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. According to prosecution, petitioner is husband of de facto complainant. They were married 8 years back and for about 3 years, they were living happily. Thereafter, petitioner, his mother and sister started harassing de facto complainant demanding more money and dowry. De facto complainant was residing in the house of petitioner, which was purchased using money given to her at the time of her marriage also. But, mother-in-law insisted that the property shall be given to the third accused, who is sister-in-law. De facto complainant was not willing for the same. Therefore, petitioner was physically and mentally harassed by petitioner and his family members. On 10.10.2008, petitioner was assaulted by all the accused and she sustained a fracture to the mandible. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that the allegations are not correct. The parties were living happily, but de facto complainant insisted that petitioner should take a house close to her parental house and on account of this, there was some BA.7168/08 2 difference of opinion. Petitioner was not assaulted, but she had fallen down and sustained some injury. She had gone to her house for some time. After three years of the marriage, she was residing away from the house of petitioner. There is chance for settlement, it is submitted. 4. This petition is opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that this is a case where even physical assault was made on de facto complainant and she sustained grievous hurt. Parties were living separately after three years of marriage. She again started living with him a few months back, but there was an altercation about four months back while she was residing with petitioner and she was again assaulted. All these happened because she was not ready to transfer the property belonging to petitioner in the name of petitioner's sister because, it was bought with the fund of de facto complainant also. On hearing both sides, considering the nature of allegations made, I am satisfied that it is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. Crime was registered as early as on 25.10.2008 and petitioner is bound to surrender before the police and co-operate with the investigation. Petition is dismissed. K.HEMA, JUDGE vgs.