IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN THURSDAY, THE 18TH MARCH 2010 / 27TH PHALGUNA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 1394 of 2010() -------------------------------- CMP.1893/2010 of J.M.F.C. - I, KARUNAGAPPALLY CRIME NO. 976/2009 OF KARUNAGAPPALLY POLICE STATION .................... PETITIONER/ACCUSED : --------------------------- JAGADEVAN, S/O.SADANANDAN, DWARAKA, KADATHURMURI, THAZHAVA VILLAGE, KARUNAGAPPALLY TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.A.K.ALEX RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT : ----------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KARUNAGAPPALLY. BY SRI. M.S.BREEZ PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T. SANKARAN, J. ------------------------ B.A. No. 1394 of 2010 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 18th 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 is the accused in Crime No. 976/2009 of Karunagappally Police Station, Kollam District. 2. The offence alleged against the petitioner is under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The wife of the petitioner died in unnatural circumstances on 23.09.2009. She was taken to the hospital. The petitioner stated that his wife had fallen down. Later, he changed his version and stated that the deceased had attempted to commit suicide by hanging on the window grill. Originally, the crime was registered under Section 498 A. Later, the offence was altered into 304-B. 4. The petitioner was arrested on 09.02.2010 and he was remanded to judicial custody. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is no reason why the petitioner should be continued to be B.A. No. 1394 / 2010 2 kept in judicial custody. 6. The learned Public Prosecutor seriously opposed the Bail Application. He submitted that the investigation has revealed that the petitioner had some sort of illegal connection with another lady. It is also stated that there was frequent quarrel in the petitioner's house as a result of this. The learned Public Prosecutor also pointed out that the scientific investigation revealed that the theory of suicide put forward by the petitioner is incorrect. The scientific experts had occasion to inspect the grills of the window on which the suicide was allegedly attempted. It is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that the postmortem certificate shows that the deceased died as a result of constriction force on her neck. It is submitted that these aspects lead to the theory of murder. In these circumstances, it is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that detailed investigation into all the scientific aspects is required. It is pointed out that the petitioner should be subjected to polygraph test. The learned Public Prosecutor also submitted that if the petitioner is released on bail at this stage, it would adversely affect the proper investigation of the B.A. No. 1394 / 2010 3 case. 7. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature and gravity of the offence , the requirements for further scientific investigation, the suspicious circumstances in which the deceased died and all other attendant circumstances, I am of the view that the petitioner cannot be released on bail at this stage. If the petitioner is released on bail at this stage, it is likely that valuable pieces of evidence would be destroyed. The witnesses and persons who are aware of the facts are likely to be influenced and intimidated by the petitioner, if he is released on bail. For the aforesaid reasons, the Bail Application is dismissed. K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE ln