IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA TUESDAY, THE 17TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 28TH MAGHA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 7644 of 2008() ----------------------------- CRIME NO. 480/2008 OF BALARAMAPURAM POLICE STATION PETITIONER (S): ACCUSED 1 AND 2:- -------------------- 1. THAMPI TITUS, 33 YEARS, S/O.TITUS RESIDING AT .AMBANADU SALOMI BHAVAN KUSHAVARKAL NALANCHIRA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. PRAVEEN KUMAR.N.S.@ PRADEEP , AGED 31 YEARS, S/O.NEELAKANDAN NAIR, DEEPA PRABHA POST OFFICE COMPOUND, PAPPANAMCODE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.NAGARAJ NARAYANAN SRI.RAJAN VELLOTH SRI.SAIJO HASSAN SRI.A.S.SABU RESPONDENT(S): STATE:- --------------- STATE OF KEALA, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.M.S.BREEZ THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K. HEMA, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= B.A. No. 7644 of 2008 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this the 17th day of February, 2009 O R D E R Petition for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under sections 306 read with section 34 IPC. On a First Information Statement given, a crime was registered under caption “unnatural death” under section 174 Cr.P.C., when deceased Prasad who is a retired D.T.O. committed suicide by consuming poison. On investigation, certain letters were seized and it is alleged that petitioners have abetted suicide. 3. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that offence under section 306 IPC will not be attracted, in the light of a decision reported in Cyriac V. S.I. of Police (2005(3)KLT 673). He also submitted that 1st petitioner runs three shops. Deceased was working as a Manager and when he was in dare need of money, 1st petitioner arranged loans for him and for one such transactions his own brother stood as a surety, as persuaded by 1st petitioner. Since deceased defaulted payment, notice was issued to the surety and petitioner was insisted to pay back the money. But deceased could not pay the money and hence, he committed suicide. Petitioners are innocent of the BA 7644/09 -2- allegations made and hence, they may be granted anticipatory bail, it is submitted. 4. This petition is opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that letters written by the deceased before his death would clearly implicate 1st petitioner by name, as the person responsible for commission of suicide. The details of the letter will clearly show that petitioner had a role in the suicide. The investigation is at the initial stage. In the nature of allegations made and in the nature of disputed facts, petitioners' custodial interrogation is necessary for an effective investigation. Therefore, it is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail, it is submitted. 5. On going through the case diary and also on going through the letters allegedly written by the deceased, I am satisfied that the matter requires a detailed investigation for which, the custodial interrogation of petitioner may also be required. Considering the serious nature of allegations made, I am of the view that this is not fit to grant anticipatory bail. Whether petitioners had the required criminal intention to constitute offence under section 306 IPC has to be ascertained by investigation and facts which are within the exclusive BA 7644/09 -3- knowledge of petitioner can be ascertained in the custodial interrogation. In such circumstances, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail in a case of this nature. Crime was registered as early as on 14-11-2008 and petitioners are not available for investigation. 8. Hence, the following order is passed:- 1) Petitioner is directed to surrender before the Investigating Officer without any delay and co- operate with the investigation. Whether he surrenders or not, police is at liberty to arrest him and proceed in accordance with law. 2) No further application for anticipatory bail by petitioner in this crime will be entertained by this Court, since on the facts in this case, this Court ordered that this is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail and any order to the contrary in any subsequent anticipatory bail application will amount to review, which is impermissible in law. The petition is dismissed. K.HEMA, JUDGE. mn.