IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT THURSDAY, THE 28TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 9TH PHALGUNA 1929 Bail Appl..No. 1081 of 2008() ----------------------------- CMP.422/2008 of J.M.F.C.-I,NEDUMANGAD CRIME NO.20/08 OF VENJARAMOODU POLICE STATION .................... PETITIONER/2ND ACCUSED --------------------------------------- PUSHPANGARAN, S/O.KRISHNAN NADAR, VINEESH BHAVAN, NELLANAD. BY ADV. SRI.SIBY MATHEW SRI.PHILIP J.VETTICKATTU RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENT & STATE ------------------------------- 1. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VENJARAMOODU POLICE STATION, VENJARAMOODU. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. JAI GEORGE. THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. ------------------------------------------------- B.A. No.1081 of 2008 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 28th day of February, 2008 ORDER Application for regular bail. The petitioner is the 2nd accused. Altogether, there are 2 accused persons. The 1st accused is the brother-in-law of the petitioner. The crux of the allegation against the petitioner is that he caused the death of an elderly woman – a neighbour of his by throwing her into a well. The alleged incident took place on 9/1/08 at 9.30 p.m. On the same night i.e., 1.30 a.m. on 10/1/08 the First Information Statement has been lodged. There was bitter strain in the relationship between the two families. Civil as well as criminal litigations were pending. The deceased, along with her children, is alleged to have gone to the house of the petitioner in violation of the orders of the civil court. There, they allegedly came across the illegal activity of B.A. No.1081 of 2008 -: 2 :- brewing of liquor. The children of the deceased wanted her to rush back home and bring the mobile phone. She was allegedly returning to her house. It is the case of the prosecution that the petitioner enraged by the conduct of the deceased had intercepted her on her way to her house from the house of the petitioner. He in a hit of rage allegedly threw the old woman into the well where she succumbed injuries and breathed her last by the time when she was taken out of the well and rushed to the hospital. The crime has been registered. The precise allegations are raised in the First Information Statement. Investigation is in progress. The petitioner was arrested on 10/1/08. His brother-in-law who partnered the petitioner in the crime has also be arrested subsequent to the filing of this petition, it is submitted. Investigation is not over. Final report has not been filed. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is absolutely innocent and the woman had accidentally fallen into the well. Because of the animosity, it is now made to appear that the petitioner was responsible for her falling into the well and her death. It was a transparent case of the accidental fall into the well, it is submitted. The petitioner, who has remained in custody from 10/1/08, may now be enlarged on bail, it is prayed. B.A. No.1081 of 2008 -: 3 :- 3. The learned Public Prosecutor opposes the application. The learned Public Prosecutor submits that there are no circumstances which can justify or warrant the invocation of the discretion under Sec.439 of the Cr.P.C. in favour of the petitioner now. The Investigator in a serious crime like this must be granted sufficient time to complete the investigation. The nature, seriousness and the gravity of the allegations is certainly a vital input while considering the invocation of the discretion under Sec.439 of the Cr.P.C. 4. The learned Public Prosecutor, in particular, points out that there are independent eye witnesses to vouch the fact that the deceased had not fallen accidentally into the well and that it was the deliberate culpable conduct of the petitioner and the co-accused that led to the presence of the deceased in the well. 5. I have considered all the relevant inputs. Case Diary statements have been made available for my perusal. The Case Diary has also been placed before me for my perusal. I have perused the same. I have particularly perused the statements of the witnesses who had allegedly seen the interception of the deceased by the petitioner and his conduct of having thrown the deceased into the well. I shall carefully avoid any detailed discussions on merits about the acceptability of the allegations B.A. No.1081 of 2008 -: 4 :- or the credibility of the data collected. Suffice it to say that I agree with the learned Public Prosecutor that the discretion under Sec.439 of the Cr.P.C. does not deserve to be invoked at this stage and the Investigator deserves to be granted further time to complete the investigation. 6. In the result, this bail application is dismissed. But I may hasten to observe that the petitioner shall be at liberty to move this Court for bail again at a later stage of the investigation – not, at any rate, prior to 13/3/2008. The Investigator shall, in the meantime, make every endeavour to complete the investigation. Sd/- (R. BASANT, JUDGE) Nan/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge