JAYACHANDRAN KUTTAPPAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 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 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 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.