IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA TUESDAY, THE 28TH OCTOBER 2008 / 6TH KARTHIKA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 6456 of 2008() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.798/08 OF NJARAKKAL POLICE STATION PETITIONERS ------------------------------ 1. KAMALAKSHI, AGED 85 YEARS, W/O RAMANKUTTY, TALAPPILLY HOUSE, EDAVANAKKAD P.O., VYPIN, ERNAKULAM. 2. JAMEELA, AGED 45 YEARS, W/O PRASANNAN, KATTIPARAMBAL HOUSE, NAYARAMBALAM, VYPIN, ERNAKULAM(D/O RAMANKUTTY, TALAPPILLY HOUSE, EDAVANAKKAD P.O., VYPIN, ERNAKULAM). BY ADV. SRI.M.T.BALAN SRI.VIJUBALA SMT.SOBHANA RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT -------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI.M.S.BREEZE ADV.SRI.SANTHOSH PODUVAL FOR DE FACTO COMPLAINANT THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. ----------------------------------------- B.A.No.6456 of 2008 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 28th October, 2008 O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Sections 304B and 306 of the Indian Penal Code. According to prosecution, wife of first accused committed suicide from his house on 7.8.2008 by consuming poison. First accused and his mother and sister (accused 2 and 3) were harassing her, by demanding more money and dowry and thereby committed offences under the above said Sections. A crime was registered under the caption 'unnatural death' on the same day on the complaint made by the de facto complainant's brother. 3. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that petitioners are mother-in-law and sister-in-law of the deceased. First petitioner is aged 85 years and second petitioner, sister-in-law is not residing in the same house. They are absolutely innocent of the allegations made. The deceased used to get certain unknown phone calls and just before the incident, a phone call came and she was not willing to attend the phone call. She was totally disturbed, thereafter. Later, she collapsed while she was washing clothes. She was immediately taken to the hospital and she was reported dead. BA.6456/08 2 There was no incident prior to the present case in which any allegation of harassment was made. The deceased's brother is an active worker of CPI(M) and at his instance, the police has registered the crime and false allegations are now being made against petitioners. If petitioners are arrested and detained, they will be subjected to harassment and torture, it is submitted. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that anticipatory bail may be granted atleast to the first petitioner. 4. This petition is opposed. Learned counsel for de facto complainant was also heard. It was submitted by learned counsel for de facto complainant that the information conveyed to the de facto complainant by petitioners (accused 2 and 3) on the crucial day was that the deceased had a heart attack. But, he found some violet coloured liquid coming out of the nose which was wiped out from the body and on seeing this, he had suspicion. Hence, he made a complaint to the police, suspecting reasons other than cardiac attack. He also insisted for conduct of postmortem examination which was refused by petitioners and first accused as well as one “Swamy”. It was also submitted that though the doctor, who examined the deceased at the hospital stated that it was a case of cardiac arrest, on postmortem examination, it was revealed that it is a case of poisoning. BA.6456/08 3 5. It was also submitted that the remnants of poison which was consumed by the deceased was not available in the house and it was not traced out from the house. Therefore, it is now suspected that poison must have been deliberately removed by the inmates of the house. Second petitioner is not residing in the house, but it was she who took the deceased to the hospital along with the brother. In such circumstances, unless petitioners are interrogated by police, it may not be possible to find out the real cause of death, it is submitted. It is even suspected that it may not be a case of murder by poisoning, but, something more would have happened, learned counsel submitted. Learned counsel for de facto complainant also submitted that steps are being taken for investigation by the CBI. 6. On hearing both sides, I find that petitioners' custodial interrogation will be required, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, particularly since the remnants of the poison could not be detected in the house-search. In the peculiar circumstances of the case, I find that the request by first petitioner also cannot be allowed, since she was also present at the house, when the deceased collapsed at the house and she will have many materials within her exclusive knowledge to be conveyed to the police. If anticipatory bail is granted and the petitioners are not subjected to interrogation, it is likely that it will adversely affect the BA.6456/08 4 investigation. The facts which are in the exclusive knowledge of the petitioners can be brought out only by interrogating them in custody. Therefore, it may not be proper to grant anticipatory bail in a case of this nature. The incident occurred as early as on 7.8.2008 and the petitioners could not be arrested so far. Petitioners are hence directed to surrender before the police within seven days from today and co-operate with the investigation. With this direction, petition is dismissed. K.HEMA, JUDGE vgs.