IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA WEDNESDAY, THE 4TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 15TH MAGHA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 6913 of 2008(B) ------------------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN BA.6456/2008 Dated 28/11/2008 CRIME NO.798/2008 OF NJARACKAL POLICE STATION .................... PETITIONER/ACCUSED NOS.2 & 3 : ------------------------------------------- 1. KAMALAKSHI, AGED 85 YEARS, W/O.RAMANKUTTY, TALAPPILLY HOUSE,EDAVANAKADU, VYPEEN, ERNAKULAM. 2. JAMEELA, AGED 45 YEARS,W/O.PRASANNAN, KATTIPARAMBIL HOUSE, NAYARAMBALAM, VYPEEN, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.S.RAJEEV RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT : ------------------------------------ STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY S.I.OF POLICE, NJARACKAL POLICE STATION BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.K.S.SIVAKUMAR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. -------------------------------- B.A. No.6913 OF 2008 -------------------------------- Dated this the 4th day of February, 2009 O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. This is the second application for anticipatory bail. The alleged offences are under Sections 304B, 306 read with 34 of I.P.C. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that first petitioner is the mother-in-law and second petitioner is the sister-in-law of the deceased and first petitioner is aged 85 years. The only request now made is that first petitioner may be directed to surrender before the present Investigating Officer and make herself available for interrogation during pendency of this petition. Though this petition is for anticipatory bail, petitioner now confines to this limited prayer, it is submitted. 3. This petition is strongly opposed by learned Public Prosecutor. Learned counsel for the defacto complainant was also heard. It was pointed by learned Public Prosecutor that all the contentions raised by learned counsel for petitioners were considered by this court in the earlier application for B.A.No.6913 of 2008 2 anticipatory bail and those are stated in detail in the order dated 28.10.2008 in B.A.No.6456 of 2008. This court observed that the facts which are within the exclusive knowledge of petitioners can be brought out only by interrogating them in custody. A direction was also given to them to surrender before the police within seven days from the date of order and co-operate with the investigation. The investigation could not be continued, without the interrogation of petitioners. 4. It was also pointed out by learned Public Prosecutor that as per the chemical analysis report 'Furidan' was the poison which was detected in the viscera. Therefore, without the knowledge of the inmates of the house, there cannot be any poisoning and therefore, the interrogation of petitioners in custody will be required to elicit truth and for an effective investigation. On hearing both sides and on going through the case diary and considering the various facts and circumstances, I do not find any reason to deviate from my earlier findings and the stand taken by me in the earlier order in the anticipatory bail application. Any order passed to the contrary by this court will B.A.No.6913 of 2008 3 amount to review of the order already passed by this court earlier in the anticipatory bail application. This is not permissible in law. Hence, the following order is passed : i) Petitioners shall surrender before the Investigating Officer forthwith and co- operate with the investigation. Whether they surrender or not, police is at liberty to arrest them and proceed in accordance with law. ii) No further application for anticipatory bail by petitioners in this crime will be entertained by this court. The petition is dismissed. K.HEMA, JUDGE pac