IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA TUESDAY, THE 30TH SEPTEMBER 2008 / 8TH ASWINA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 6042 of 2008() ------------------------------------------- (CRIME NO.137/2008 OF VYTHIRI POLICE STATION) PETITIONERS: ------------------------ 1. VINOD, AGED 35 YEARS,S/O.KRISHNANKUTTY, SREEPURAM VAYALIL VEEDU, CHOONDA.P.O, VITHIRI. 2. KRISHNANKUTTY, AGED 57 YEARS, SREEPURAM VAYALIL VEEDU, CHOONDA.P.O, VYTHIRI. 3. JANAKI, AGED 57 YEARS,W/O.KRISHNANKUTTY, SREEPURAM VAYALIL VEEDU, CHOONDA.P.O, VYTHIRI. BY ADV. SRI.JOSE PALLATTUKARAN RESPONDENT: ----------------------- STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VYTHIRI POLICE STATION THROUGH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. M.S. BREEZ THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss K.HEMA, J. =========== Bail Application No.6042 of 2008 =============================== Dated this the 30th day of September, 2008. O R D E R This petition is for bail. 2. A crime was registered under the caption “man missing”, on the allegation that the 1st petitioner has taken away an infant who was born to one Ayisha with whom he had illicit relationship and through whom the said Ayisha became pregnant and delivered the baby. Thereafter, the baby is missing. The child was taken away while the said Ayisha and the 1st petitioner returning from the hospital, stating that the 1st petitioner will look after the child. Thereafter, the whereabouts of the child is not known. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioners are absolutely innocent of the allegations made. The 2nd and 3rd petitioners are the parents of the 1st petitioner. They are totally innocent of the total allegations made. They are not even aware of anything about the whereabouts of Ayisha or her delivery. It is submitted that the family members of the said Bail Application No.6042 of 2008 2 Ayisha and family members of the 1st petitioner are not on good terms and that is why petitioners are falsely implicated in the crime. 4. This petition is opposed. Learned public prosecutor submitted that the crime was registered on the basis of a statement given by a social worker who had witnessed the 1st petitioner and Ayisha returning from the hospital with the baby. Several witnesses are questioned and the 1st petitioner's involvement in the crime is clearly revealed. But, there is no allegation against petitioners 2 and 3 and they are not required for arrest. This submission is recorded. The 1st petitioner's custodial interrogation is necessary for effective investigation into the crime and hence if anticipatory bail is granted it will adversely affect the interrogation, it is submitted. The crime is registered as early as on 24.8.2008. 5. On hearing both sides, I am satisfied that an investigation is required into the crime affected and the 1st petitioner will be required for interrogation by the police, for Bail Application No.6042 of 2008 3 an effective investigation. The crime is registered, as early as on 24.8.2008. But the 1st petitioner was not available for interrogation. Hence the following order is passed: 1) The request made for anticipatory bail by the petitioners 2 and 3 is rejected, as infructuous. 2) The 1st petitioner is directed to appear before the Magistrate court concerned or before the investigating officer and co-operate with investigation within seven days from today. With this direction, the petition is disposed of. K.HEMA, JUDGE. bkn/-