IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN THURSDAY, THE 14TH JANUARY 2010 / 24TH POUSHA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 104 of 2010 CRIME NO.618 OF 2009 OF NOORANADU POLICE STATION, ALAPPUZHA PETITIONER: ACCUSED: -------------------- UMAIBA BEEVI, AGED 65 YEARS, D/O. KUNJUMMA BEEVI, ERUMAPPURATHU VEEDU, MEKKUM MURI, THAMARAKULAM VILLAGE, MAVELIKARA, ALAPPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.A.AHZAR RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT: STATE: --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, NOORANADU POLICE STATION, NOORANADU, ALLEPPEY DISTRICT. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.AMJAD ALI THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------ B.A. NO. 104 OF 2010 ------------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 14th day of January, 2010 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.618 of 2009 of Nooranadu Police Station, Alappuzha District. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 498A, 302 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. Shahina, the daughter-in-law of the petitioner, fell into a well along with her baby aged eight months on 15.12.2009. Shahina and the baby were taken out of the well and they were admitted in the hospital. The baby died thereafter. On 17.12.2009, Shahina made a statement to the investigating officer that she was pushed into the well by her mother-in-law. She stated that she was being harassed by the mother-in-law (petitioner) stating that the ornaments given to her at the time of marriage did not have the required weight B.A. NO. 104 OF 2010 :: 2 :: and on other grounds. On 15.12.2009, there was a quarrel in the house. It is stated that Shahina had contacted her mother and she was planning to go to her house. While Shahina went near the well along with the baby to wash her face, it is alleged that her mother-in- law, the petitioner herein, pushed her into the well. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the First Information Statement given by a relative of Shahina, though there are allegations of cruelty, there is no allegation that Shahina was pushed into the well by the petitioner. The First Information Statement was given by a relative of Shahina, who was not present in the scene of occurrence at the time of incident. 5. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature and gravity of the offence and the allegations levelled against the petitioner, I do not think that the petitioner is entitled to the discretionary relief under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in spite of the fact that the petitioner is a woman and she is stated to be aged about sixty years. If anticipatory bail is granted to the petitioner, it would adversely affect the proper investigation of the case. This is not a fit case where the B.A. NO. 104 OF 2010 :: 3 :: discretionary jurisdiction under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure could be invoked in favour of the petitioner. For the aforesaid reasons, the Bail Application is dismissed. (K.T.SANKARAN) Judge ahz/