IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Bail Appl No. 6975 of 2006()
1. JAYACHANDRAN, S/O.KUTTAPPAN,
... Petitioner
2. SOBHANAKUMARI, W/O.JAYACHANDRAN,
3. SOJINI J.CHANDRAN,
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.J.S.AJITHKUMAR
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.RAMKUMAR
Dated :05/12/2006
O R D E R
V. RAMKUMAR, J.
---------------------------
B.A.NO.6975 OF 2006
---------------------------
Dt. DECEMBER 5, 2006
ORDER
In this petition filed under sec.438 Cr.P.C. the petitioners who
are accused Nos.1 to 3 in Crime No.454/2006 of Kattakkada Police
Station for an offence punishable under sec.498A IPC, seek
anticipatory bail.
2. The petitioners are the parents-in-law and the husband of the
de facto complainant viz. Mithra Manmadhan aged 26 years. The
marriage between Mithra and the 3rd petitioner herein was solemnized
on 13.5.2006. M.T.Manmadhan, the father of Mithra, is employed in
Gulf. At the time of her marriage gold ornaments weighing 101
sovereigns and a foreign gold chain weighing 5 sovereigns, a bracelet
weighing 1= sovereigns and a gold ring weighing > sovereign was
given to the 3rd petitioner. A gold bangle weighing 1 sovereign was
given to the 3rd petitioner’s sister. Apart from that, cash worth Rs.3.5
lakhs, a mobile phone worth Rs.24000/-, another mobile phone worth
Rs.7000/-, a Sony television worth Rs.9000/-, furniture worth
Rs.29000/-, a home theater, a mixie, a pulser and a motor cycle etc.
were also given to the 3rd petitioner. Alleging that they have to
B.A.6975/06 2
purchase a car, the petitioners took the cash amount from Mithra. But
later she was told that the cash was utilised for clearing some financial
liability. The 3rd petitioner and others had appropriated the gold
ornaments of Mithra. They also insisted her to sell her gold
ornaments. When she objected to the same, alleging that her
jewellery was made of rolled gold, the 3rd petitioner began corporal
torture of Mithra. She was even mentally upset over the conduct
of her husband and in laws. They used to abuse her and subject her
to sentimental blackmail alleging that she was mentally deranged.
They used to demand more dowry. Mithra had on many occasions
contacted her parents through telephone to narrate her said plight in
her matrimonial home. She was virtually a prisoner there. On account
of the physical assault on her, she was experiencing pain on her ears,
cheeks and had also developed headache. It was taking advantage
of the fact that Mithra’s father is abroad that the petitioners were
allegedly ill-treating her and physically and mentally torturing her.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the
de facto complainant was having mental illness even before the
marriage and the said illness was concealed from the petitioners. He
also invited my attention to Annexures A-I and A-II prescriptions
issued to Mithra sometime in the year 2000 by a consultant
B.A.6975/06 3
psychiatrist. Merely because Mithra had consulted a psychiatrist
sometime prior to the marriage, it does not follow that she was
suffering from mental illness. Her marriage was solemnized only on
13.5.2006 and within a short span of 6 months she has been driven to
the necessity of lodging a complaint before the police for the
matrimonial atrocities and domestic violence inflicted on her. I am not
inclined to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioners against whom there
are very specific allegations in the complaint lodged by Mithra to the
police. There is no reason why the petitioners should not surrender
before the magistrate and seek regular bail. This petition is
accordingly dismissed.
(V.RAMKUMAR, JUDGE)
mt/-