IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Bail Appl..No. 3793 of 2008()
1. ABEY K. JOSE, S/O. KUNJU KUNJU JOSEPH,
... Petitioner
2. KUNJU KUNJU JOSEPH,
3. THANKAMMA, W/O. KUNJU KUNJU JOSEPH,
4. SHIBI K. JOSE,
Vs
1. S.I. OF POLICE, CHADAYAMANGALAM
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.ALEXANDER GEORGE
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MRS. Justice K.HEMA
Dated :13/06/2008
O R D E R
K. HEMA, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
B.A.No. 3793 of 2008
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 13th day of June, 2008
O R D E R
Application for anticipatory bail.
2. Petitioners are accused in the crime registered under sections
498A read with section 34 IPC. Petitioners 2, 3 and 4 are the father-in-law,
mother-in-law and sister-in-law of the defacto-complainant. They physically
and mentally harassed the defacto-complainant after the marriage
demanding dowry and the defacto-complainant lived in the petitioners’
house only for a period of 70 days.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, defacto-
complainant and the learned Public Prosecutor.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the parties are
living separately since 10-11-2005 and the marriage was conducted on 1-8-
2005. According to the petitioners, the defacto-complainant is having some
mental problem and she was treated for the problem at various hospitals.
Therefore, the marriage broke within a few days and the 1st petitioner, who
came to know that the defacto-complainant is mentally sick, filed a petition
for divorce before the Family Court. On coming to know about such
BA 3793/08 -2-
petition, a false complaint is filed, it is submitted.
5. The application is opposed. The learned Public Prosecutor
submitted that there are allegations even against the father-in-law in making
physically some sexual overtures towards the defacto-complainant and she
had complained to her husband about it.
6. The learned counsel for the defacto-complainant stated that the
marriage broke only because of the harassment from the petitioners and
there is no evidence to show that the defacto complainant is mentally sick.
7. On hearing both sides and in the absence of any material to
substantiate the contentions raised by the petitioners, I find that prayer for
anticipatory bail by petitioners 1 and 2 cannot be granted. However,
regarding the 3rd and 4th petitioners, mother-in-law and sister-in-law, the
learned Public Prosecutor has no objection in granting anticipatory bail on
conditions.
8. Hence, the following orders can be passed:-
1. Request for anticipatory bail by the 1st and 2nd petitioner is
rejected.
2.Petitioners 3 and 4 shall surrender before the
Investigating Officer within one week from today
and make themselves available for interrogation.
BA 3793/08 -3-
3. If the petitioners 3 and 4 are arrested, they shall
be released on bail on their executing a bond for
Rs.25,000/- each with solvent sureties each for the
like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting
officer on condition that they shall shall co-operate
with the investigation and appear before the
Investigating Officer as and when directed.
The application is partly allowed.
K. HEMA,
JUDGE.
mn.