IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA TUESDAY, THE 8TH JUNE 2010 / 18TH JYAISTHA 1932 Bail Appl..No. 3394 of 2010() ----------------------------- (CRIME NO.68/2009 OF VARKALA POLICE STATION) .................... PETITIONER/ACCUSED: --------------------------------------- VISHNU, S/O.BAHULEYAN, VISHNU VILLA, HOLY CROSS, MURUKKUMPUZHA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.M.SREEKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): STATE & COMPLAINANT: ----------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VARKALA POLICE STATION, VARKALA. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.M.S.BREEZ THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J ----------------------- B.A No.3394 OF 2010 -------------------------------- Dated this the 8th day of June 2010 ORDER This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offence is under Section 306 of IPC. According to prosecution, petitioner was in love with the alleged victim who was a nursing student. They belong to different communities. It was decided to solomnise the marriage of petitioner and the deceased. But, petitioner withdrewfrom the decision and hence the girl committed suicide. 3. This is the second application for anticipatory bail. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the charge sheet is laid and petitioner is not required for investigation. It is also submitted that petitioner is not responsible for the death of the deceased. Her parents were compelling her to withdraw from the marriage and that has resulted in the suicide. 4. Annexure B is the order passed by this court in an earlier application for anticipatory bail. The said order, Annexure B was passed as early as on 02/06/2009, about one year back. Taking into consideration the nature and character of offence, this court was not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. 5. It is also relevant to note. Learned Public Prosecutor had opposed the earlier anticipatory bail application B.A No.3394 OF 2010 2 on the ground that petitioner's custodial interrogation is necessary. But, petitioner was not available for interrogation even after one year of dismissal of the earlier anticipatory bail application. Learned Public Prosecutor also submitted that he has no instruction whether charge is laid or not. Taking all the above facts into consideration, I am satisfied that petitioner is not entitled to the discretionary relief under Section 438 Cr.P.C. 6. I also make it clear that no further application for anticipatory bail by petitioner in this crime will be entertained in this crime hereafter. Petition is dismissed. K.HEMA JUDGE vdv