IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN MONDAY, THE 8TH MARCH 2010 / 17TH PHALGUNA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 915 of 2010() ------------------------------------ CRIME NO.747/2009 OF KILIMANOOR POLICE STATION. .................... PETITIONER/ACCUSED -------------------------------------- CHANDRAN @ KUNJELA, S/O.ASOKAN VALIYAVILA VEEDU, POIKAKKADA KOZHUVANNOOR VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.LATHEESH SEBASTIAN RESPONDENT/STATE: --------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KILIMANOOR POLICE STATION. SRI. TEKCHAND, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T. SANKARAN, J. --------------------------- B.A. No. 915 of 2010 -------------------------- Dated this the 8th day of March, 2010 O R D E R This is an application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner is the accused in Crime No.747/2009 of Kilimanoor Police Station. 2. The offence alleged against the petitioner is under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The prosecution case is that on 26/12/2009 at 4.30 A.M., the petitioner attacked his wife with an iron rod and inflicted serious injuries on her head resulting in exposure of the brain matter. She succumbed to the injuries. The petitioner was arrested on 26/12/2009 and he was remanded to judicial custody. 4. The learned Public Prosecutor very vehemently opposed the application for bail. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted the following facts: The petitioner has two children. The elder daughter married her neighbour. The petitioner did not like that. In fact, she had eloped with him. The second child of the petitioner is B.A. No. 915 /2010 2 aged only 3½ years. The petitioner is an alcoholic. He used to quarrel with his wife. On 19/3/2009, the wife of the petitioner had filed a petition before the police complaining about the harassment and cruelty meted out by the petitioner towards her. She was accompanied by her brother to the police station. On account of that rivalry, the petitioner attacked his brother-in-law (brother of the deceased). Crime No.456/2009 was registered in respect of that incident against the petitioner under Sections 341, 326, 506(ii) and 308 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner was released on bail in that case. While on bail, the present crime was committed. The offence was committed in the presence of the son of the petitioner, aged 3½ years. The learned Public Prosecutor also submitted that on the previous day of the incident, the petitioner had called his daughter and son-in-law to visit his house. Out of fear, they did not turn up. The investigating officer suspects that the invitation extended to his daughter and son-in-law was to do away with them along with the wife of the petitioner. 5. It is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that if B.A. No. 915 /2010 3 the petitioner is released on bail, it would be a threat to the life of his daughter and son-in-law. It is also likely that the petitioner may tamper with the evidence and intimidate the witnesses. 6. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, the fact that the petitioner is alleged to have committed the present crime while on bail in Crime No.456 of 2009 and the manner in which the crime was allegedly committed and also taking note of the threat to the life of the daughter and son-in- law of the petitioner, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner at this stage. The Bail Application is accordingly dismissed. K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE scm