IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Bail Appl..No. 7042 of 2008()
1. SRUTHI W/O. BABU, AGED 22 YEARS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.P.R.SREEJITH
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MRS. Justice K.HEMA
Dated :24/11/2008
O R D E R
K. HEMA, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
B.A. No. 7042 of 2008
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 24th day of November,2008
O R D E R
Petition for anticipatory bail.
2. The alleged offences are under sections 406 and 498A
IPC. According to prosecution, de facto complainant was
married by 1st accused. Thereafter, his brother who is the 2nd
accused was married to 3rd accused. The 3rd accused had brought
gold ornaments than de facto complainant. Hence, 1st accused ill-
treated and harassed de facto complainant asking to bring more
gold ornaments. She was physically and mentally harassed by
accused at home. Accused 2 and 3 also ill-treated and harassed
her insisting that she should bring more money.
3. Petitioner along with other accused filed a petition for
anticipatory bail before this Court and it was dismissed as per
order dated 31-10-2008 in B.A.no.6199/2008. This Court had
observed in that order, after considering the facts and
circumstances that no circumstance or fact was pointed out to
grant anticipatory bail to petitioners. The crime was registered as
early as on 18-9-2008 and petitioners were not available for
interrogation and hence, a direction was issued to petitioners to
surrender before the Investigating Officer within ten days from
today and co-operate with the investigation. Accused 1 to 3 did
BA 7042/08 -2-
not comply with the direction issued by this Court and they did
not co-operate with the investigation also. Though this order was
passed as early as on 31-10-2008 they are still absconding.
4. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that petitioner
is pregnant by 2 = months and hence this may be taken as a
ground to grant anticipatory bail, it is submitted. On considering
the above submissions made, I had passed an interim order dated
18-11-2008 that the matter will be heard only after accused 1 and
2 surrendered, as directed in the order dated 31-10-2008 in B.A.
no.6199/2008. The said order was passed on 18-11-2008. Even
today, the accused have not surrendered. On the facts and
circumstances of this case, I find that anticipatory bail cannot be
granted to petitioner.
Hence, petitioner is again directed to
surrender before the Investigating Officer within
two days from today and co-operate with the
investigation, failing which no other anticipatory bail
application will be entertained by this Court.
With this direction, this petition is dismissed.
K.HEMA, JUDGE.
mn.