IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA FRIDAY, THE 4TH JUNE 2010 / 14TH JYAISTHA 1932 Bail Appl..No. 3220 of 2010() ----------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN BA.853/2010 Dt. 01/03/2010 .................... PETITIONER(S): APPLICANT/ACCUSED ------------------------------------- UNNIKRISHNAN M., S/O.KALYANIKUTTY AMMA, MANGAT HOUSE, KANATTUKARA, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU SRI.VIPIN NARAYAN RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT -------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTING THE S.I. OF POLICE, WADAKKANCHERRY POLICE STATION. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR. M.S BREEZ THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: sou. K. HEMA, J ---------------------- B.A.No.3220 OF 2010 ----------------------------------- Dated this the 4th day of June, 2010 O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offence is under section 306 IPC. According to prosecution, one Bindu died due to burn injuries. She was in love with petitioner. Petitioner abetted suicide. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that this is the second application for anticipatory bail. According to him, police has no definite case about what offence is involved in this case. On the basis of a statement given by victim, a crime was registered u/s.307 IPC. Later when she died, offence was converted into one u/s.302 IPC. Subsequently, charge sheet was laid, under section 306 IPC. Petitioner is innocent of the allegations made and he may be granted anticipatory bail, it is submitted. It is also submitted that petitioner's sister was also made an accused though she was deleted later. 4. Learned public prosecutor pointed out that a statement was given by the deceased that petitioner had poured kerosene on her and set fire to her and that is why crime was registered u/s 307 IPC. After the death it was converted to sec.302 IPC. It is B.A. No.3220/10 2 also submitted that later, on investigation section 306 IPC was included. Petitioner was not available for interrogation. 5. On hearing both sides and on going through the order in an earlier application for anticipatory bail (B.A.853/10), I find that this court found that petitioner is not entitled to the discretionary relief U/s.438 of Cr.P.C. It was also observed that if anticipatory bail is granted to petitioner, it will adversely affect proper investigation of the case. This court also found that custodial investigation of petitioner is required in this case. The order was passed as early as on 1.3.2010 but petitioner evaded interrogation. He filed an application for anticipatory bail and in the meantime, police filed charge sheet including offence u/s 306 IPC. I do not think that it is fit to grant anticipatory bail to petitioner, considering the serious nature of the allegations made against petitioner. 6. It is also made clear that no further application for anticipatory bail by the petitioner, will be entertained by this court in this crime. This petition is dismissed. K. HEMA, JUDGE. Sou.