IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Bail Appl..No. 6538 of 2008()
1. MAHESH.M.R., S/O.N.RADHAKRISHNAN PILLAI,
... Petitioner
2. N.LEELABHAI, D/O.SAVITHRI AMMA,
3. MANOJ.M.R., S/O.N.RADHAKRISHNA PILLAI,
4. T.R.JAMINI, W/O.MANOJ.M.R.,
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE
... Respondent
2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KOTTARAKKARA
For Petitioner :SRI.GEORGE VARGHESE(PERUMPALLIKUTTIYIL)
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MRS. Justice K.HEMA
Dated :23/10/2008
O R D E R
K. HEMA, J.
---------------------------------------------------
Bail Appl.No.6538 of 2008
---------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 23rd day of October, 2008.
ORDER
Petition for anticipatory bail.
2. The alleged offences is under Sections 498A read with
Section 34 IPC. According to prosecution, the first accused is the
husband and accused nos. 2 to 4 are the near relatives of the
husband of de facto complainant. They allegedly harassed the de
facto complainant after the marriage by demanding more money and
the first accused took her to her house insisting that she should bring
money. Thereafter, he refused to maintain her. There was physical
and mental torture by the first accused.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the
allegations in the F.I.R. will not constitute any offence under section
498A IPC. As per the allegations, the husband used to beat the de
facto complainant. An amount of Rs. 3 lakh was paid to the husband
and he had taken her to her house and left her insisting that she
should bring money and he neglected and refused to maintain de
facto complainant. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that
[B.A.No.6538/08] 2
the first petitioner is unemployed and he has no income whereas the
de facto complainant is working as a Lab Assistant in a Government
school. There are no issues in the relationship. It is also submitted that
while she was living in the matrimonial house her gold ornaments ( 10
sovereigns) were stolen and a complaint was also lodged by her
stating this and therefore the allegation that petitioner took all her
gold is not correct. He is not liable for the loss of the gold ornaments.
The allegation is that the first petitioner has misappropriated all her
gold ornaments except 4 sovereigns.
4. This petition is opposed. Learned counsel for the petitioners
submitted that the allegations against the first accused is serious in
nature. There were allegations of both physical and mental torture.
There was demand for money and he also misappropriated gold
ornaments. The de facto complainant had 50 sovereigns in total and
she was also taken to her house and abandoned without making any
enquiries about her. As far as petitioners 2 to 4 are concerned, there
is only general allegations. Hence, he has no objection in granting
anticipatory bail to them, but first petitioner does not deserve
anticipatory bail.
4. On hearing both sides, I am satisfied that considering the
nature of the allegations made against the first petitioner, it is not a fit
case to grant anticipatory bail. However, anticipatory bail can be
granted to petitioners 2 to 4.
[B.A.No.6538/08] 3
Hence, the following order is passed:
1) The prayer for anticipatory bail by the first petitioner
(A1) is rejected. He is directed to surrender before the
investigating officer within 7 days from today and co-
operate with the investigation.
2) Petitioners 2 to 4 are directed to surrender before
the Magistrate court concerned and, if any bail
application is filed, they shall be released on bail on
their executing bond for Rs.25,000/- with two solvent
sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of
the learned Magistrate on the following conditions:
i) They shall report before the investigating officer
as and when directed.
ii) They shall co-operate with the investigation.
iii) They shall not commit any offence while on bail.
Petition is allowed.
K. HEMA, JUDGE.
Krs.