IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT THURSDAY, THE 16TH AUGUST 2007 / 25TH SRAVANA 1929 Bail Appl..No. 4937 of 2007() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.111/07 OF IRIKKUR POLICE STATION : PETITIONERS/ACCUSED ----------------------------------- 1. PRADEEP KUMAR V.V., AGED 38 YEARS, S/O. KUNHAMBU NAIR, PUTHIYA VEEDU, KALYAD, P.O.IRIKKUR, KANNUR. 2. NANI AMMA, AGED 70 YEARS, W/O KUNHABU, PUTHIYA VEEDU, KALYAD, P.O.IRIKKUR, KANNUR. BY ADV. SRI.A.MOHAMED MUSTAQUE RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. S.H.O. IRIKKUR POLICE STATION, IRIKKUR. 2. STATE OF KERALA, BOTH THE RESPONDENTS ARE REP.BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.JAI GEORGE THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/08/2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J ------------------------------------ B.A.No.4937 of 2007 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 16th day of August, 2007 ORDER Application for anticipatory bail. The petitioners are the husband and mother in law of the deceased. Marriage took place on 06.06.02. Two children were born in the wedlock. The deceased committed suicide on 28.06.07. 2. The crime has been registered initially under the caption `unnatural death'. Subsequently in the course of investigation after the close relatives of the deceased were questioned, the allegations under Sections 498 A and 306 I.P.C have been included. Investigation is in progress. The petitioners apprehend imminent arrest. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are absolutely innocent. Because of the unfortunate death of the deceased by suicide, the close relatives are making false allegations belatedly against the petitioners. In these circumstances, it is prayed that directions under Section 438 Cr.P.C may be issued in favour of the petitioners. 4. The learned Public Prosecutor opposes the application. The learned Public Prosecutor submits that the investigation reveals that the husband and mother in law have been guilty of matrimonial B.A.No.4937 of 2007 2 cruelty of the culpable variety without any dispute. There are indications to show that the paternity of the second child was disputed by the 1st accused even when the deceased was admitted for delivery at the hospital. To allay any unnecessary apprehension, offer was made to get the D.N.A test conducted by the 1st petitioner, but that offer was turned down. After delivery when she returned to the house of the husband, physical and mental cruelty was again inflicted on the deceased by the petitioners, it is alleged. Statement of the mother of the deceased and the father of the deceased as well as relatives of the deceased are there graphically conveying the nature of the alleged cruelty inflicted on the deceased by the accused persons. 5. The learned Public Prosecutor opposes the application. The learned Public Prosecutor submits that there are no circumstances justifying the invocation of the discretion under Section 438 Cr.P.C. 6. I shall scrupulously avoid any detailed discussion about the acceptability of the allegations or the credibility of the data collected. Suffice it to say that in the nature of the contentions, this Court was persuaded to request the learned Public Prosecutor to place the case diary before the Court. I have gone through the relevant statements of the deceased. I am satisfied that there are no features in this case B.A.No.4937 of 2007 3 which would justify the invocation of the extraordinary equitable discretion under Section 438 Cr.P.C in favour of the petitioners. This I am satisfied is a fit case where the petitioners must surrender before the Investigating Officer or the learned Magistrate having jurisdiction and then seek regular bail in the ordinary course. This conclusion is reached despite the fact that the 2nd petitioner is a woman of advanced age. She must surrender and attempt to seek the compassion of law in favour of such persons under Section 438 Cr.P.C. 7. This application is, in these circumstances, dismissed, but I may hasten to observe that if the petitioners surrender before the Investigating Officer or the learned Magistrate and apply for bail after giving sufficient prior notice to the Prosecutor in charge of the case, the learned Magistrate must proceed to pass appropriate orders on merits and expeditiously. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) rtr/-