IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN TUESDAY, THE 11TH AUGUST 2009 / 20TH SRAVANA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 4301 of 2009 CRIME NO.103 OF 2009 OF CHALAKUDY POLICE STATION APPLICANT/ACCUSED NO.1 ------------------------------------------ VINOD WARRIER, S/O.MADHAVA WARRIER, THRIPPEKKULAM WARRIAM, PUTHENCHIRA DESOM, PUTHENCHIRA P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU SRI.VIPIN NARAYAN RESPONDENT: STATE -------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. REPRESENTING THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, CHALAKKUDY POLICE STATION. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.TEKCHAND THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------ B.A. NO. 4301 OF 2009 ------------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 11th August, 2009 O R D E R This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner is accused No.1 in Crime No.103 of 2009 of Chalakudy Police Station. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 498A and 304B read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The marriage between the petitioner and the deceased was solemnized on 5.11.2006. The allegation is that the life of the deceased at the residence of the petitioner was miserable. The petitioner as well as his mother meted out cruelty towards the deceased. The petitioner was working abroad. The allegation is that after the marriage, money was demanded from the deceased, her mother and brothers as a condition for not initiating proceedings for divorce. The prosecution alleges that the petitioner has a case that the deceased was not beautiful and also that she was not as capable as Swetha, a cousin of the petitioner. It is also alleged that the petitioner took the view that he married the deceased only because of the compulsion of his father and that he wanted to marry Swetha, the cousin of the petitioner. According to the prosecution, there B.A. NO. 4301 OF 2009 :: 2 :: were instances where the deceased was even denied food. It is alleged that the deceased was not being permitted to enter into the kitchen or to cook food. After the marriage, the service of the maid servant in the petitioner's house was terminated. It is alleged that the deceased had to do all the work in the house and still she was subjected to cruelty. It is further alleged that the deceased consumed poison on 18.1.2009. She was rushed to a private hospital, from where, after first aid, she was taken to the Jubilee Mission Hospital, Thrissur. She underwent treatment there till 11.2.2009 and she died on 11.2.2009. The First Information Report was lodged on 11.2.2009. The further allegation of the prosecution is that even after the deceased was admitted in the hospital on 18.1.2009 or on getting information that she died on 11.2.2009, neither the petitioner nor his mother (second accused) did turn up, which, according to the prosecution, is a sure indication of the cruelty meted out towards the deceased. 4. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not think that this is a fit case where anticipatory bail can be granted to the petitioner. The mother of the petitioner, who is the second accused, was granted anticipatory bail as per the order passed by this Court. The petitioner is not entitled to the discretionary relief under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. B.A. NO. 4301 OF 2009 :: 3 :: The Bail Application is accordingly dismissed. It is made clear that the observations herein above are intended only for considering the request for anticipatory bail and those observations shall not be treated as any finding on the merits of the case. (K.T.SANKARAN) Judge ahz/