IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR MONDAY, THE 15TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 26TH MAGHA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 759 of 2010() -------------------------------------- CRIME NO.35/2010 OF MANNUTHY POLICE STATION. .................... PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 AND 2 ---------------------------------------------- 1. SHAROSE, AGED 22, S/O.HANEEFA, KUNDAMVALAPIL HOUSE, S.N. NAGAR, VADOOKARA, THRISSUR. 2. SUHARA, AGED 45, W/O.HANEEFA, KUNDAMVALAPIL HOUSE, S.N.NAGAR, VADOOKARA, THRISSUR. BY ADV. MR.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR), MR.K.RAVI (PARIYARATH). STATE OF KERALA/COMPLAINANT -------------------------------------------------- THE STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MANNUTHY POLICE STATION, THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR.S.U. NAZAR. THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/02/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: rs. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. =========================== B.A.No. 759 OF 2010 =========================== Dated this the 15th day of February,2010 ORDER Petitioners are the husband and the mother- in-law of Praveena, who committed suicide on 18.1.2010. They are the accused in Crime No.35/2010 originally registered under section 174 of Code of Criminal Procedure and subsequently altered for the offence under section 306 and 498A read with section 34 of Indian Penal Code. This petition is filed under section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure for anticipatory bail apprehending arrest. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned Public Prosecutor were heard. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners pointed out that the suicide note does not indicate the alleged offence committed B.A.759/2010 2 by the petitioners and the medical records produced from Elite Mission Hospital establishes that first petitioner attempted to commit suicide on 18.12.2009 and in such circumstances petitioners are to be released on bail, in the event of their arrest. Learned counsel vehemently argued that there is no material to support the allegation that petitioners either treated deceased Praveena with cruelty or abetted her suicide. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor made available the Case Diary and pointed out that on 17.12.2009 deceased Praveena had filed a complaint alleging that she was mentally and physically treated with cruelty by the husband and the mother-in-law and she even apprehended danger to her life and the diary maintained by the deceased establishes that she was treated with cruelty and in such circumstances, custodial interrogation of the petitioners is necessary for proper investigation and in such circumstances petitioners may not be B.A.759/2010 3 released on anticipatory bail. 5. On going through the Case Diary, I find that custodial interrogation of the petitioners is necessary for proper investigation of the case. Though learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that petitioners would co- operate with the investigation and in such circumstances anticipatory bail be granted, on the facts and circumstances of the case, petitioners cannot be granted anticipatory bail as sought for. Petition is dismissed. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE tpl/- M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. --------------------- W.P.(C).NO. /06 --------------------- JUDGMENT SEPTEMBER,2006