IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN WEDNESDAY, THE 31ST MARCH 2010 / 10TH CHAITHRA 1932 Bail Appl..No. 1718 of 2010() --------------------------------- CRIME NO. 6/2010 0F VATTIYOORKAVU POLICE STATION .................... PETITIONER/ACCUSED : ---------------------------- DEVADAS @ UNNIMON @ DEVAN K.PANICKER AGED 35 YEARS, S/O.SUBRAMANIAN, KARUTHULLI KALARICKAL VEEDU, NEAR THE MAHADEVA TEMPLE, KONOOR JUNCTION, THJEKKUMKARA MURI, MURINGOOR, KORATTI, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.K.RAMACHANDRAN SRI.S.SREEDEV RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PEROORKADA POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. BY SRI. I.V.PRAMOD PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 31/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T. SANKARAN, J. --------------------------- B.A. No.1718 of 2010 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 31st day of March, 2010 O R D E R This is an application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner, Devdas @ Unnimon @ Devan K.Panicker, is the accused in Crime No.6/2010 of Vattiyoorkavu Police Station. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The prosecution case is the following: One Archana, the second wife of the petitioner was found dead in the house taken on rent by the petitioner. The dead body was found on 1/1/2010 by the police on the information furnished by the brother of the landlord of the petitioner. He had gone to the house to collect rent. The house was found locked. He felt foul smell. He telephoned to the petitioner. The petitioner told him that there was a dog in the house and death of that dog might have taken place. The petitioner did not turnout. The brother of the landlord informed the police. The police broke open the house and found the dead body. B.A. No.1718 /2010 2 4. The postmortem report revealed that the deceased had sustained nine ante-mortum injuries and all of them were incised wounds. Most of the wounds were on the head of the victim. Skull was broken and brain matter had come out. The dead body was in a decomposed stage. 5. The petitioner was arrested on 11/2/2010 and he was remanded to judicial custody. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that on 27/8/2008, the petitioner and the deceased had filed a petition under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act before the Family Court, Ernakulam. That application was dismissed due to non-appearance of the parties. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the fact that the petition under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act was filed by the deceased as well as the petitioner would indicate that the petitioner was residing separately. 7. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the investigation reveals that after the filing of the application under Section 13B of the Hin du Marriage Act, the deceased was not B.A. No.1718 /2010 3 willing for a divorce and therefore, she did not appear before the Family Court. 8. The investigation revealed that the neighbours had seen the deceased and the petitioner together residing in the house, wherein dead body of the deceased was found. The investigation also shows that on 28/12/2009, the petitioner was not in his house at Thrissur and he came back only on 29/12/2009. The investigation also reveals that his first wife was not aware of the relationship between the petitioner and Archana, the deceased. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that after the incident, the petitioner was found absconding. He is an Assistant Director engaged in directing television serials and Albums. 9. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the Bail Application. It is submitted that the investigation is not over and if the petitioner is released on bail at this stage, it would be detrimental to the proper investigation of the case. It is likely that the petitioner may try to influence or intimidate the witnesses and tamper with the evidence. B.A. No.1718 /2010 4 10. After considering the facts and circumstances of the case and after perusing the Case Diary, I am of the view that it is not proper to release the petitioner on bail at this stage. The apprehension voiced by the learned Public Prosecutor is worthy of acceptance. For the aforesaid reasons, the Bail Application is dismissed. K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE scm