IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN TUESDAY, THE 2ND FEBRUARY 2010 / 13TH MAGHA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 254 of 2010 CRIME NO.861 OF 2009 OF KADAKKAL POLICE STATION, KOLLAM DISTRICT PETITIONER/ACCUSED -------------------------------------- M.NAVAS, AGED 35 YEARS, S/O.MUHAMMED HANEEFA, BUSHANA HANEEFA, BUSHANA MANZIL, MULLONAM, CHADAYAMANGALAM, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.DILEEP P.PILLAI RESPONDENT: COMPLAINANT -------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.M.S.BREEZ THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------ B.A. NO. 254 OF 2010 ------------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 2nd day of February, 2010 O R D E R This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner is the accused in Crime No.861 of 2009 of Kadakkal Police Station, Kollam District. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 306 and 493 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The gist of the prosecution case is the following: The deceased Sobha was the wife of the de facto complainant. She had two children in that wedlock. Sobha and her husband were living together for the last sixteen years. The petitioner is an autorickshaw driver. He developed an intimacy with Sobha a few months before. He enticed Sobha promising to marry her. They started residing together. On 2.11.2009, Sobha telephoned to the de facto complainant, her husband, and stated about her miserable life. She B.A. NO. 254 OF 2010 :: 2 :: wanted to see the children. The de facto complainant agreed. He brought her to the house. She stayed there. On the next day morning, the de facto complainant went for work. Thereafter, he got a telephone call stating that Sobha was hospitalized. By the time he reached the hospital, Sobha died. She consumed poisonous substance. The deceased belonged to Kuruva community, which is stated to be a scheduled caste. 4. The petitioner moved an application for anticipatory bail before the learned Sessions Court. Before the Sessions Court, the petitioner even denied any acquaintance with the deceased. However, no such case is put forward before the High Court. 5. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature and gravity of the offence and the allegations levelled against the accused, I do not think that this is a fit case where the discretionary relief under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure should be granted in favour of the petitioner. If anticipatory bail is granted to the petitioner, it would adversely affect the proper investigation of the case. Custodial interrogation of the petitioner may be required in the case. I am also of the view that the B.A. NO. 254 OF 2010 :: 3 :: petitioner is not entitled to the discretionary relief under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. For the aforesaid reasons, the Bail Application is dismissed. (K.T.SANKARAN) Judge ahz/