IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA THURSDAY, THE 8TH JULY 2010 / 17TH ASHADHA 1932 Bail Appl..No. 3426 of 2010() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.103/2009 OF CHALAKKUDY POLICE STATION (S): PETITIONER/ACCUSED -------------------------------------- VINOD WARRIER, S/O.MADHAVA WARRIER, THRIPPEKKULAM WARRIAM, PUTHENCHIRA DESOM, PUTHENCHIRA.P.O, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.T.RAMPRASAD UNNI SRI.MANU TOM RESPONDENT(S): STATE & COMPLAINANT ---------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, CHALAKKUDY POLICE STATION. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.M.S.BREEZ. THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. ---------------------------------------------- Bail Application No.3426 of 2010 ---------------------------------------------- Dated 8th July, 2010. O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Sections 498A and 304B of the Indian Penal Code. According to prosecution, petitioner (A1) married the deceased on 5.11.2006. Petitioner as well as his mother inflicted cruelty on her after the marriage. Money was also demanded from the deceased, her mother and brothers, for not initiating divorce proceedings against deceased. Petitioner also expressed that he married the deceased only because of the compulsion of his father and he wanted to marry his cousin Swetha, who was more capable. The deceased was even denied food and not permitted to enter the kitchen or cook food. The service of the maid servant in the house was terminated after the marriage and the deceased had to do all the household work. She consumed poison on 18.1.2009 and she was taken to the hospital. She died on 11.2.2009 at the hospital. On the same day, F.I.R. Was lodged by the brother of the deceased. There is also an allegation that though the deceased was admitted in the hospital on 18.1.2009, petitioner did not turn up. Even after the death, neither petitioner nor his mother turned up. BA NO. 3426/10 2 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that after the marriage, petitioner and his mother were engaged in the treatment of his father, who was ailing from malignancy. In February, 2007, his father died and petitioner went abroad since he was working there. Thereafter, deceased left the house and she was staying in her parents' house. On 18.1.2009, she consumed poison and she died on 11.2.2009. Petitioner did not come because he was working abroad. An application for anticipatory bail was filed by petitioner earlier and the reason given for dismissing the petition was that he did not visit the deceased when she was hospitalised and also that he did not come after the death of the deceased. Petitioner apprehends arrest, immediately on his reaching India. In the above circumstances, he is not even in a position to come to India. 4. This petition is opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that petitioner filed an application for anticipatory bail in the year 2009 itself and the said application was dismissed, after considering the rival contentions. On the facts of the case, this is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail, it is submitted. Petitioner is working abroad and there is no question of causing his arrest immediately. Hence, there is also no apprehension of BA NO. 3426/10 3 imminent arrest. 5. On hearing both sides and on going through the case diary and the order passed, another bench of this court, in the earlier application for anticipatory bail filed by petitioner, I find that this Court in the said Annexure A order, held as follows : “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 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.” This Court had already found in Annexure A order that this is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail and that petitioner is not entitled to the discretionary relief under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code. After hearing both sides and considering the relevant aspects, I do not find any reason to come to a different view. I also find that petitioner has no imminent apprehension of arrest. Petitioner is working abroad and it is not made clear even now whether he is coming to India in near future. In such circumstances, it cannot be said that there is any apprehension of imminent arrest of petitioner within the jurisdiction of this Court. BA NO. 3426/10 4 As per the decision reported in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab (1980)2 SCC 565), the Supreme Court held that the “imminence of a likely arrest” is also a relevant factor while considering anticipatory bail application. But, in this case, there is no such imminence of likelihood of arrest (vide also Samdeep Varghese v. State of Kerala and others (2010(3) ILR 66). 6. This court had already found twice, on the facts of this case that this is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. The investigation is in a stand still and petitioner is bound to surrender without any delay. Hence, I pass the following order : (1) The prayer for anticipatory bail is rejected. (2) Petitioner shall surrender before the Investigating Officer or the court concerned as expeditiously as possible, as the situation in this case warrants. (3) No further application for anticipatory bail by petitioner will be entertained by this court hereafter. Petition is dismissed. K.HEMA, JUDGE. tgs