IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT FRIDAY, THE 11TH APRIL 2008 / 22ND CHAITHRA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 2109 of 2008() ----------------------------- CRMP.568/2008 of DISTRICT COURT, KOTTAYAM CRIME NO.119/2008 OF VAIKOM POLICE STATION .................... : PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 TO 4 --------------------------- 1. SIJU.K.M., S/O.MADHAVAN,KOOMPEL HOUSE CHEMPU P.O.,VAIKOM. 2. SINESH K.M.,S/O.MADHAVAN,KOOMPEL HOUSE CHEMPU P.O.,VAIKOM. 3. MADAVAN,AGED 60,KOOMPEL HOUSE CHEMPU P.O.,VAIKOM. 4. BHAVANI, AGED 58,W/O.MADHAVAN KOOMPEL HOUSE CHEMPU P.O.,VAIKOM. BY ADV. SRI.S.SREEKUMAR RESPONDENTS: ------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.JAI GEORGE THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/04/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J. ---------------------- B.A.No.2109 of 2008 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 11th day of April 2008 O R D E R Application for anticipatory bail. The petitioners are the husband of the deceased, her brother-in-law, father-in-law and mother-in-law respectively. Marriage took place on 6/12/2007. It was a love marriage. The girl, belonging to the Scheduled Caste Community, was a graduate. The first petitioner was a person belonging to the Dheevara community. He has education only upto the seventh standard. Bride attempted to commit suicide on 20/2/2008 by consuming some poisonous fruit. She expired on 21/2/2008. Crime was initially registered under Section 174 Cr.P.C as a case of unnatural death. In the course of investigation, it is seen that the brother-in-law and father-in-law of the deceased were initially arrayed as accused. Subsequently the husband and the mother-in-law have also been arrayed as accused. Allegations are raised against them alleging offences punishable under Sections 498A, 306 and Section 3(i) (x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The deceased had left no suicide note. She had attempted to commit suicide within a period of two months of the marriage. It is alleged that the father-in-law and brother-in-law had refused to take food prepared by the deceased. There is also an allegation that the B.A.No.2109/08 2 father-in-law had demanded ornaments of the deceased to facilitate purchase of an item of property. What appears to me to be more relevant is that the husband had resisted the attempt of his father to so extract money from his bride. Allegations under Section 3(i)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act is also raised; but significantly there is absolutely no semblance of an allegation that any such conduct was indulged in in public view. 2. The learned Public Prosecutor opposes the application for anticipatory bail in so far as all the accused are concerned; but on an anxious consideration of all the relevant inputs - I have gone through the case diary in detail, I am not persuaded to agree that all the petitioners deserve to be denied anticipatory bail. As against the third accused/father-in-law, I find that there are satisfactory indications available to suggest culpability - of course not for the offence punishable under Section 3(i)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. All the other three accused, I am satisfied, can be granted anticipatory bail. 3. I have considered the bar under Section 18 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The allegations, even if accepted in toto, do not reveal an B.A.No.2109/08 3 offence under Section 3(i)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The mere fact that the investigating officer has chosen to quote that Section in the F.I.R, cannot certainly attract the operation of Section 18. In these circumstances, I do not reckon Section 18 as a bar to entertain this application for anticipatory bail. 4. In the result, this petition is allowed in part. The prayer for anticipatory bail in so far as the third petitioner/father-in-law is concerned is dismissed with the observation that the said petitioner must surrender before the investigating officer or the learned Magistrate having jurisdiction and then seek regular bail in the normal and usual course. 5. Following directions are issued under Section 438 Cr.P.C in favour of the petitioners 1,2 and 4. I am satisfied that accepting the request of the learned Public Prosecutor, a condition can be imposed to exclude these petitioners from entering the jurisdiction of Vaikom police station. i) Petitioners 1,2 and 4 shall surrender before the learned Magistrate having jurisdiction at 11 a.m on 21/04/2008. They shall be released on regular bail on condition that they execute bonds for Rs.25,000/-(Rupees twenty five thousand only) each with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate. B.A.No.2109/08 4 ii) The petitioners shall make themselves available for interrogation before the investigating officer between 10 a.m and 3 p.m on 22/04/2008 and 23/04/2008. During this period, the investigating officer shall be at liberty to interrogate the petitioners in custody and take all necessary steps for the proper conduct of the investigation in this crime. Thereafter the petitioners shall so appear on all Mondays between 10 a.m and 12 noon for a period of one month. Subsequently the petitioners shall so appear as and when directed by the investigating officer in writing to do so. (iii) If the petitioners do not appear before the learned Magistrate as directed in clause (i), directions issued above shall thereafter stand revoked and the police shall be at liberty to arrest the petitioners and deal with them in accordance with law, as if these directions were not issued at all. (iv) If they were arrested prior to 21/04/2008, they shall be released from custody on their executing a bond for Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) without any sureties, undertaking to appear before the learned Magistrate on 21/04/2008. v) Except for the purpose of complying with condition No.ii) above, the petitioners shall not enter the jurisdiction of Vaikom police station during the said period of one month. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) jsr B.A.No.2109/08 5 B.A.No.2109/08 6 R.BASANT, J. CRL.M.CNo. ORDER 21ST DAY OF MAY2007