IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN MONDAY, THE 8TH MARCH 2010 / 17TH PHALGUNA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 5237 of 2009() ---------------------------------------- CRIME NO.228/2008 OF RAMANKARY POLICE STATION, ALLEPPEY. PETITIONERS/ACCUSED: --------------------------------------- 1. SINOY PHILIP, S/O.PHILIP VARGHESE, AGED 23 YEARS, ETTIL HOUSE, KIZHAKKE MITHRAKKARY MURI, MUTTAR PANCHAYATH, WARD NO.X 2. ANNAMMA PHILIP, W/O.PHILIP VARGHESE, ETTIL HOUSE, KIZHAKKE MITHRAKKARY MURI, MUTTAR PANCHAYATH, WARD NO.X BY ADV. SRI.K.A.SALIL NARAYANAN RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT: --------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. SRI. TEKCHAND, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T. SANKARAN, J. --------------------------- B.A. No. 5237 of 2009 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 8th day of March, 2010 O R D E R When the Bail Application came up for hearing on 22/02/2010, the following order was passed: “This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioners are accused Nos.1 and 2 in Crime No.228 of 2008 of Ramankary Police Station. 2. The offences alleged against the accused are under Sections 306 and 366A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The first accused fell in love with Steffia. It would appear that they were living together since 9.6.2008. The prosecution case is that the first accused kidnapped Steffia on 9.6.2008 from the lawful guardianship of the de facto complainant. On 7.11.2008, Steffia committed suicide. The prosecution alleges that she was harassed physically and mentally by the accused persons demanding dowry. It is alleged that the life of Steffia become so unbearable which compelled her to commit suicide. 4. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature and gravity of the offence and the allegations levelled against the B.A. No. 5237/2009 2 first accused, I do not think that the first petitioner/first accused is entitled to the discretionary relief under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Custodial interrogation of the first accused may be required during investigation. If anticipatory bail is granted to him, it would adversely affect the proper investigation of the case. 5. However, in so far as the second petitioner/second accused is concerned, I am of the view that she can be afforded an opportunity to appear before the investigating officer and submit herself for interrogation. Accordingly, there will be a direction to the second petitioner to appear before the investigating officer at 9 A.M. on 2.3.2010 and 3.3.2010. The second petitioner shall produce a copy of the order before the investigating officer. Post on 8.3.2010. It is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that the second petitioner will not be arrested until further orders in connection with Crime No.228 of 2008 of Ramankaray Police Station.” 2. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned Public Prosecutor that the second petitioner has complied with the direction contained in the B.A. No. 5237/2009 3 order dated 22/2/2010. 3. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of the offence and other circumstances, I am of the view that anticipatory bail can be granted to the second petitioner (second accused). There will be a direction that in the event of the arrest of the second petitioner (second accused), 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 second petitioner (second accused) shall appear before the investigating officer for interrogation as and when required; B) The second petitioner (second accused) shall not try to influence the prosecution witnesses or tamper with the evidence; C) The second petitioner (second accused) 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 dismissed in so far as the first B.A. No. 5237/2009 4 petitioner (first accused) is concerned and it is allowed in the manner indicated above, in so far as it relates to the second petitioner (second accused). K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE scm