IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN FRIDAY, THE 9TH APRIL 2010 / 19TH CHAITHRA 1932 Bail Appl..No. 1620 of 2010 CRIME NO.35 OF 2010 OF MANNUTHY POLICE STATION, THRISSUR. APPLICANT/ACCUSED NO.2 ------------------------------------------ SUHARA, W/O.LATE HANEEFA, KUDAMVALAPIL HOUSE, S.N.NAGAR, VADOOKARA, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU RESPONDENT: COMPLAINANT -------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTING THE S.I. OF POLICE, MANNUTHY POLICE STATION. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.M.S.BREEZ THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09/04/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. --------------------------------------------- B.A.No.1620 of 2010 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 9th day of April, 2010 O R D E R This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner, Suhara, is a widow. It is stated that her husband died of cancer. She is accused No.2 in Crime No.35 of 2010 of Mannuthy Police Station. Her son is the first accused. 2. The offences alleged against the accused are under Sections 498A, 304B and 306 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The daughter-in-law of the petitioner committed suicide on 18.1.2010. The allegation is that she committed suicide on account of the cruelty meted out by the petitioner and her son, the husband of the deceased. It is also alleged that there was demand for dowry and the deceased committed suicide since she could not meet the demand for more dowry. 4. The petitioner and her son moved Bail Application No.759 of 2010 before this Court for anticipatory bail. That BA No.1620/2010 2 application was dismissed by the order dated 15th February, 2010 mainly for the reason that custodial interrogation was necessary. 5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the first accused (the son of the petitioner and the husband of the deceased) was arrested and he was interrogated by the investigating officer on getting police custody. It is submitted that this is a change of circumstance and that at present, it is not necessary that the petitioner also be subjected to custodial interrogation. Though the Bail Application filed by the petitioner was dismissed, in view of the change of circumstances, it is submitted that she may be granted anticipatory bail. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is prepared to co-operate with the investigating officer and that she is prepared to comply with any condition that may be imposed by the court. 6. Taking into account the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the fact that the petitioner is a Muslim widow and the fact that the first accused was arrested and interrogated in police custody, I am of the view that the BA No.1620/2010 3 petitioner can be granted anticipatory bail in the changed circumstances. There will be a direction that in the event of the arrest of the petitioner, the officer in charge of the police station shall release her on bail on her executing bond for Rs.15,000/- with two solvent sureties for the like amount to the satisfaction of the officer concerned, subject to the following conditions: a) The petitioner shall appear before the investigating officer for interrogation as and when required; b) The petitioner shall not try to influence the prosecution witnesses or tamper with the evidence; c) The petitioner shall not commit any offence or indulge in any prejudicial activity while on bail; d) In case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, the bail shall be liable to be cancelled. The Bail Application is allowed to the extent indicated above. K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE csl