IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA MONDAY, THE 11TH AUGUST 2008 / 20TH SRAVANA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 5031 of 2008() ----------------------------- CRMP.1756/2008 of DISTRICT COURT, KOTTAYAM CRIME NO.58/04 OF KARUKACHAL POLICE STATION PETITIONER/ACCUSED ----------------------------------- RAMANATHAN, AGED 34 YEARS, S/O.SIVARAMALINGAM, KAMARAJ NAGAR, MYLADI, ANJUGRAMAM P.O., ERAVIPOTHOOR VILLAGE, AGASTHEESWARAM TALUK, KANYAKUMARI DISTRICT, TAMILNADU STATE. BY ADV. SRI.JACOB E SIMON RESPONDENTS: STATE ------------------ THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE S.H.O., KARUKACHAL POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI.K.S.SIVAKUMAR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. ----------------------------------------- B.A.No.3051 of 2008 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 11th August, 2008 O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offence is under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code. According to prosecution, petitioner and de facto complainant are residing in the same building in different rooms. There was a cry from the room of the deceased and the petitioner, along with a nearby shop keeper, went to that room and found that the deceased was injured and he was taken to the hospital. But, the petitioner is now wanted by the police for his arrest, in connection with the death of the deceased. Petitioner is totally innocent of the allegations made. The incident happened in April, 2004 and now the police is in search of the petitioner. 3. This petition is strongly opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that there is no eye witness to the occurrence. There is only circumstantial evidence. Hence, petitioner's custodial interrogation is absolutely essential to find out material facts which are within his exclusive knowledge. The incident happened as early as in 2004 and the petitioner could not be apprehended so far, even after expiry of four years from the date of occurrence. BA.3051/08 2 4. On hearing both sides, I am satisfied that for an effective investigation, custodial interrogation of the petitioner would be required and hence, this court will not stand in the way of the same by granting anticipatory bail. This petition is dismissed. K.HEMA, JUDGE vgs.