IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN TUESDAY, THE 2ND JUNE 2009 / 12TH JYAISHTA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 2597 of 2009() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.68/2009 OF VARKALA POLICE STATION PETITIONER (S): ACCUSED --------------------------- VISHNU, S/O. BAHULEYAN, VISHNU VILLA, HOLY CROSS MURUKUMPUZHA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.C.R.SIVAKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT -------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VARKALA POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.TEKCHAND THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. -------------------------------- B.A.No.2597 of 2009 --------------------------------- Dated this the 2nd day of June, 2009 ORDER This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner is the accused in Crime No.68 of 2009 of Varkala Police Station. 2. The offence alleged against the petitioner is under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The prosecution case is that for the last several years the petitioner was in love with one Apsara who was a nursing student. They belong to different communities. At the instance of the relatives of both parties, it was decided to solemnise the marriage of Vishnu (the petitioner) and the deceased. The prosecution case is that later Vishnu had withdrawn from the promise which resulted in the suicide of the deceased. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had appeared before the DYSP and he was throughly interrogated. He has stated all the facts before the BA No.2597/2009 2 DYSP and therefore, it is not necessary to arrest the petitioner in connection with the crime. 5. The application is opposed by the learned public prosecutor. It is stated that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary and that the petitioner is not entitled to get anticipatory bail in the nature of the offence involved in the case. 6. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature and character of the offence and other circumstances, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. The Bail Application is accordingly dismissed. K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE csl BA No.2597/2009 3 BA No.2597/2009 4 K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE csl