IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN FRIDAY, THE 11TH DECEMBER 2009 / 20TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 7169 of 2009() ----------------------------------- CRIME NO. 505/2009 OF PERAMBRA POLICE STATION .................... PETITIONER/ACCUSED: --------------------------------- RAMAKRISHNAN, S/O.KUNHIKKANNAN NAIR, VILLAKOLA HOUSE, ERAVATTOOR-PERAMBRA, CALICUT. BY ADV. SRI.SIVAN MADATHIL RESPONDENT: --------------------- THE STATE OF KERALA THROUGH SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PERAMBRA POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY SRI. V. TEKCHAND PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.SANTHARAM.P FOR ADDL.RES. SMT.P.K.PRIYA FOR ADDL.R THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T. SANKARAN, J. --------------------------- B.A. No. 7169 of 2009 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 11th day of December, 2009 O R D E R This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner is the accused in Crime No.505/2009 of Perambra Police Station. 2. The offence alleged against the petitioner is under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The petitioner is a dentist by profession. He is the husband of a young lady lawyer, namely Bindu, who was practicing in Perambra Bar. They have a son aged about 12 years. The petitioner is conducting a dental clinic at Perambra. The deceased was a junior lawyer practising in the Perambra Courts. Later, she got a job in a construction company at Calicut. The petitioner, the deceased and their son were residing in the house of the petitioner located about 40 kms away from Calicut. 4. On 11.11.2009, the deceased was admitted in Baby Memorial Hospital, Kozhikode stating that she had consumed “ASPA 80”, a product of amway. It is alleged that the deceased consumed 'ASPA 80', which is stated to be a poisonous substance, B.A. No. 7169 of 2009 2 at 6.30 A.M on 11.11.2009. However, the deceased was brought to Baby Memorial Hospital only by about 9.30 A.M. She was admitted in the intensive care unit by about 12 noon and she died at 2. P.M. on 11.11.2009. 5. Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 6855/2009 is filed by the mother of the deceased for impleading her in the case. Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.6850/2009 is filed by the General Convenor of an Action Committee, Perambra. The deponent of the affidavit, R.B. Prasheed, is the Secretary of Perambra Bar Association. The applications are allowed. 6. Heard. Sri. Sivan Madathil, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the learned Public Prosecutor, Advocate Smt. Priya P.K., appearing for mother of the deceased and Adv. Sri. Santharam.P, appearing for the applicant in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.6850/2009. I have carefully gone through the Case Diary as well. The mother of the deceased alleges that the relationship between the deceased and the petitioner was not cordial, that the petitioner was very cruel towards her, that even the expenses for the daily affairs was not being met by him, that the deceased was finding it difficult B.A. No. 7169 of 2009 3 to bear the expenses for daily life, that the mother of the deceased used to help the petitioner financially and otherwise and that the petitioner was having illicit connection with other ladies. It is also alleged that the deceased wanted to stay as a paying guest in the house of Advocate Sandhya at Kozhikode and the petitioner did not allow her to do so. There were frequent quarrels between the petitioner and the deceased. It is also alleged that the deceased was planning to file a petition for divorce. 7. The mother of the deceased also alleges that the petitioner has high political connections and that he is financially very sound. It is stated that when the investigating officer made an attempt to find out the petitioner at his sister's house, certain politicians of the ruling party interfered and a meeting was held at Perambra alleging that the police was unnecessarily harassing the petitioner. It is alleged that the brother-in-law of the petitioner is a prominent leader of the ruling political party. B.A. No. 7169 of 2009 4 8. It is alleged that the petitioner did not give first aid to the deceased and that without taking the deceased to a nearby hospital, the petitioner took her to a distant hospital, 40 kms away from their house and it was deliberate. It is also alleged by the mother of the deceased as well as by the applicant in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 6850/2009 that 'ASPA 80' is an organic solution intended for high yield in plants and trees and that consumption of the same would not cause death of a person, particularly an adult person. It is alleged that the conduct of the petitioner in not taking the petitioner to the nearest hospital, not giving first aid to her and not allowing relatives and neighbours to give assistance to the deceased at the needy hour, are all suspicious circumstances against the petitioner. It is alleged that though the relatives came to the house of the petitioner offering to take the deceased to the hospital, they were not allowed to do so by the petitioner. 9. It is also alleged that the petitioner was having illicit connection with a married woman, who is also the relative of the petitioner. It is alleged that she used to go to his clinic during lunch recess and the petitioner and that lady had B.A. No. 7169 of 2009 5 frequent meetings in the clinic during lunch intervals. It is alleged that the deceased had objected to the relationship between the petitioner and that lady. 10. The Post Mortem report is not made available. On a perusal of the Case Diary, it is seen that Adv. Sandhya is not questioned. The doctor, who treated the deceased was also not questioned. All the relevant materials are not brought out by the investigating officer. 11. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not think that this is a fit case where the discretionary relief under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure should be granted in favour of the petitioner. Custodial interrogation of the petitioner would be required in the case. If Anticipatory Bail is granted to the petitioner, it would adversely affect the proper and smooth investigation of the case. It is clear from the records that the petitioner is not available in station. His clinic was found closed. According to the mother of the deceased and the Action Committee, the petitioner has absconded with the help of political leaders. The grant of Anticipatory Bail is not to exonerate a person from the normal B.A. No. 7169 of 2009 6 course of law. It is intended to protect a person from harassment, humanitarian and torture, by the investigating agency and to protect him from arrest and detention in a case foisted against him. In the facts and circumstances of the case, it cannot be assumed that the petitioner would be subjected to any such act by the investigating agency. It cannot also be said that the petitioner was falsely implicated in the case. I do not find any ground to exercise the discretionary relief under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in favour of the petitioner. For the aforesaid reasons, the Bail Application is dismissed. K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE ln