IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT TUESDAY, THE 26TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 7TH PHALGUNA 1929 Bail Appl..No. 1000 of 2008() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.45/08 OF VANDIPERIYAR POLICE STATION : PETITIONER/ACCUSED ----------------------------------- UMA, AGED 35 YEARS, D/O.RAGHAVAN, KOZHUVUMAKKAL HOUSE, PASUMALA, MANJUMALA VILLAGE, IDUKKI DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.T.A.UNNIKRISHNAN SRI.P.P.BIJU RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT ------------------------ STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.GIKKU JACOB THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J ------------------------------------ B.A.No.1000 of 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 26th day of February, 2008 ORDER Application for anticipatory bail. Petitioner is a married woman having two children aged 9 and 11 years respectively. She had some unpleasant experiences in the matrimonial home. To give vent to her frustration, she allegedly consumed poison. She also allegedly persuaded the children to consume poison. Suicide notes were left behind by the children as well as the petitioner. The prosecution alleges that the children were asked to write such suicide notes by the petitioner herself. It is accordingly that such suicide notes have been brought into existence. On 02.02.08 all the three consumed poison. Both the children expired. The petitioner was saved. She is still in the hospital, it is submitted. She apprehends imminent arrest. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is absolutely innocent. Her unfortunate plight may be taken into account. Anticipatory bail may, in these circumstances, be granted to the petitioner, it is submitted. 3. The learned Public Prosecutor opposes the application. The learned Public Prosecutor points out that the allegations clearly reveal the complicity of the petitioner. The alleged unfortunate circumstances are no justifications or valid defence B.A.No.1000 of 2008 2 against the complicity of the petitioner. In any view of the matter, the petitioner may be directed to surrender and seek regular bail. No circumstances exist justifying the invocation of the extraordinary equitable discretion under Section 438 Cr.P.C, submits the learned Public Prosecutor. 4. Having considered all the relevant inputs, I am persuaded to agree that there is merit in the opposition by the learned Public Prosecutor. I am not persuaded at all to agree that sufficient reasons exist to justify the invocation of the extraordinary equitable discretion under Section 438 Cr.P.C. This, I am satisfied, is a fit case where the petitioner must surrender before the learned Magistrate. These circumstances shall certainly be considered while considering her application for regular bail if any filed after surrender/arrest. At any rate, I am not satisfied that any direction under Section 438 Cr.P.C can or ought to be issued. 5. This application is, in these circumstances, dismissed, but I may hasten to observe that if the petitioner surrenders before the Investigating Officer or the learned Magistrate and applies for bail after giving sufficient prior notice to the Prosecutor B.A.No.1000 of 2008 3 in charge of the case, the learned Magistrate must proceed to pass appropriate orders on merits and expeditiously. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) rtr/-