IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN MONDAY, THE 28TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 7TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 Bail Appl..No. 6669 of 2011() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.326/2011 OF KURATHIKAD POLICE STATION, ALAPPUZHA PETITIONERS(S): ACCUSED 1 TO 3 -------------------- 1. MANU KRISHNAN, S/O.KRISHNAN KUTTY THADATHIL KIZHAKKATHIL, KALLUMALA, MAVELIKARA. 2. KRISHNAN KUTTY, THADATHIL KIZHAKKATHIL, KALLUMALA, MAVELIKARA. 3. VIJAYAMMA, THADATHIL KIZHAKKATHIL, KALLUMALA, MAVELIKARA. BY ADV. SRI.P.SREEKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE KURATHIKAD POLICE STATION,ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.K.K.RAJEEV THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. --------------------------- B.A.No.6669 of 2011 --------------------------- Dated this the 28th day of November, 2011 O R D E R This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioners are accused Nos.1 to 3 in Crime No.326 of 2011 of Kurathikad Police Station, Alappuzha District. 2. The offence alleged against the petitioners is under Section 304B read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. When the Bail Application came up for admission on 17.11.2011, the following order was passed : “3. The first petitioner married the deceased on 6.6.2010. The wife of the first petitioner committed suicide on 30.7.2011 at her house. The prosecution case is that she committed suicide on account of matrimonial cruelty. 4. Petitioners 2 and 3 are the parents of the first petitioner. The learned counsel for BA 6669/11 2 the petitioners submitted that the deceased was undergoing treatment of a psychiatrist. Even on the first day of marriage, symptoms of some sort of mental disorder were noticed. She was treated for the same. It is submitted that the doctor who treated her passed away recently. The learned counsel for the petitioners produced certain documents for perusal. It is submitted that a few days before the victim committed suicide, the father of the petitioner had made a representation to the SNDP Sakha. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor. I have also perused the entire case diary. Even before the deceased committed suicide, the second petitioner sent a letter to the SNDP Sakha requesting intervention of the Sakha into the matrimonial problems between the deceased and the first petitioner. In the letter, it is stated that even on the first day of the marriage, the deceased exhibited abnormal symptoms. It is also stated that treatment was given to the deceased by the petitioners as well as by the parents of the deceased. About one month before the date of the incident, the deceased went to her house. In the letter, the second petitioner stated in detail the facts and BA 6669/11 3 circumstances and requested the SNDP Sakha to intervene in the matter and set things right. The SNDP Sakha issued a letter to the father of the deceased and requested for suggesting a date for meeting. Thereafter, the wife of the first petitioner committed suicide. 6. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case and the nature of the offence, I am of the view that before considering the question of granting anticipatory bail, the petitioners should be directed to appear before the investigating officer. Accordingly, there will be a direction to the petitioners to appear before the investigating officer on 22nd and 23rd November, 2011. 7. Post on 28.11.2011. 8. It is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that the petitioners will not be arrested in connection with Crime No.326 of 2011 of Kurathikad Police Station, till 2.12.2011. 9. The petitioners shall co-operate with the investigating officer in the matter of investigation and for recovery of incriminating materials, if any. The petitioners shall produce a copy of this order before the investigating officer.” BA 6669/11 4 4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned Public Prosecutor that the direction in the order dated 17.11.2011 has been complied with by the petitioners. 5. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of the offence and also taking note of the fact that the direction in the order dated 17.11.2011 has been complied with by the petitioners, I am of the view that anticipatory bail can be granted to the petitioners. There will be a direction that in the event of arrest of the petitioners, the officer in charge of the police station shall release them on bail on their executing bond for ` 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) each with two solvent sureties for the like amount to the satisfaction of the officer concerned, subject to the following conditions : A) The petitioners shall appear before the investigating officer for interrogation as and when required ; BA 6669/11 5 B) The petitioners shall not try to influence the prosecution witnesses or tamper with the evidence ; C) The petitioners shall not commit any offence or indulge in any prejudicial activity while on bail; D) In case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, the bail shall be liable to be cancelled. The Bail Application is allowed to the extent indicated above. K.T.SANKARAN JUDGE csl