IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN FRIDAY, THE 5TH AUGUST 2011 / 14TH SRAVANA 1933 Bail Appl..No. 5780 of 2011() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.235/2011 OF VALIYATHURA POLICE STATION .................... PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 TO 4 AND ANOTHER : ------------------------------------------------------ 1. JAYASREE, AGED 40 YEARS, W/O.AJAYA KUMAR, RESIDING AT VALLEY VIHAR, T.C.26/438, ANAYARA.P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. AJAYA KUMAR, AGED 48 YEARS, S/O.VENUNATHAN, RESIDING AT VALLEY VIHAR, T.C.26/438, ANAYARA.P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. MITHUN, 16 YEARS, S/O.AJAYA KUMAR, RESIDING AT VALLEY VIHAR, T.C.26/438, ANAYARA.P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. REPRESENTED BY HIS MOTHER THE FIRST PETITIONER. 4. SUNI, AGED 31 YEARS, S/O.MANIYAN, RESIDING AT VASANTHALAYAM, KARIKKAKOM, BEACH.P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 5. ARUN, AGED 20 YEARS, C/O.AJAYA KUMAR & JAYASREE, NOW RESIDING AT VALLEY VIHAR, T.C.26/438, ANAYARA.P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SMT.MINI GANGADHARAN SRI.N.C.SAJUNAM RESPONDENT(S): COUNTER PETITIONER -------------------------------------------- THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA ON BEHALF OF STATE, REPRESENTING THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VALIYATHURA. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.V.MANU THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. --------------------------- B.A.No.5780 of 2011 --------------------------- Dated this the 5th day of August, 2011 O R D E R This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioners apprehend arrest in Crime No.235 of 2011 of Valiyathura Police Station on an accusation of having committed non bailable offence. There are 5 petitioners in the Bail Application. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that only petitioners 1 and 2 are accused in the crime and all the other petitioners have been deleted. Petitioners 1 and 2 are accused Nos.1 and 2. The offence alleged against the accused are under Sections 305 and 506(ii) read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The prosecution case is the following : On 24.3.2011, an altercation took place between one Midhun on the one hand and the deceased and one Arjun on the other hand. Midhun is the son of accused Nos.1 and 2. It is alleged that the petitioners, the parents of Midhun, intervened in the matter. BA 5780/2011 2 Arjun went to the house of petitioners 1 and 2 and apologised. However, Arjun was manhandled by petitioners 1 and 2. It is stated that Arjun asked the deceased not to go to the house of petitioners 1 and 2 and apologise. Accordingly, the deceased did not apologise as demanded by petitioners 1 and 2. The allegation is that the petitioners went to the house of the deceased and threatened the mother of the deceased with dire consequences. At that time, the deceased had gone for tuition. It is alleged that the petitioners threatened that the deceased would not be allowed to appear for the last examination of S.S.L.C. on 26.3.2011. 3. The prosecution case is that between 11 P.M. on 25.3.2011 and 8 A.M. on 26.3.2011, the deceased committed suicide by hanging. The police registered a crime under Section 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure as Crime No.186 of 2011. Thereafter, the mother of the deceased filed a complaint before the Magistrate's Court, which was forwarded to the police for investigation under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Crime No.235 of 2011 was accordingly registered. It BA 5780/2011 3 is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that both the aforesaid crimes were clubbed together. 4. The allegations levelled against the petitioners are grave in nature. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not think that the petitioners are entitled to get the discretionary relief under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The matter requires investigation. Custodial interrogation of the petitioners may be required in the case. If anticipatory bail is granted to the petitioners, it would adversely affect the proper and smooth investigation of the case. For the aforesaid reasons, the Bail application is dismissed. K.T.SANKARAN JUDGE csl