IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN MONDAY, THE 15TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 26TH MAGHA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 155 of 2010 CRIME NO.540 OF 2009 OF BINANIPURAM POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM PETITIONER: ACCUSED NO.1: ------------------------------ KOCHUTHRESIA, AGED 64 YEARS, W/O.OUSEPHKUTTY, KOLLAMAVUPARAMBIL, THANDIRICKAL, MUPPATHADAM, ALUVA. BY ADV. SRI.DINESH MATHEW J.MURICKEN SRI.P.V.BALAKRISHNAN RESPONDENT: --------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR, BINANIPURAM POLICE STATION, THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.TEKCHAND THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------ B.A. NO. 155 OF 2010 ------------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 15th day of February, 2010 O R D E R When the Bail Application came up for hearing on 2.2.2010, the following order was passed: “This is an application for bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner is accused No.1 in Crime No.540 of 2009 of Binanipuram Police Station, Ernakulam. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 498A and 306 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The petitioner (first accused) is the mother in law of the deceased. The petitioner and the second accused moved an application for anticipatory bail before the Sessions Court. As per the order dated 14/12/2009, the learned Sessions Judge granted anticipatory bail to the second accused, but rejected the prayer made by the petitioner. The second accused is the grandson of the first accused. B.A. NO. 155 OF 2010 :: 2 :: 4. Ruby, the daughter in law of the petitioner committed suicide, by pouring Kerosene and igniting. She sustained serious burn injuries and she was admitted in the hospital. The F.I. Statement was given by her. The learned Magistrate recorded her dying declaration. 5. The allegation is that the petitioner used to accuse the deceased every now and then for silly matters. The deceased, however, stated that there was no demand for dowry and there was no harassment on account of the same. The deceased was suffering from Epilepsy. The allegation is that the petitioner used to mention about her disease and used to say that her son could get a wife having no such disease. However, there is no case of manhandling by the petitioner. It is also revealed that a few weeks before the incident, the deceased and her husband had shifted their residence to a rented house. On the previous day of the incident, the deceased and her husband had come to the house of the petitioner on coming to know that the petitioner was not keeping well. The allegation is that in the morning on 2/11/2009, while the petitioner was going to the hospital, she directed the deceased to clean the house and courtyard. The deceased was dissatisfied with the behaviour of the petitioner towards her. She poured Kerosene on her dress and ignited. B.A. NO. 155 OF 2010 :: 3 :: 6. I have perused the Case Diary. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is a woman aged 65 years and if she is arrested and detained, she would be put to untold misery and hardship. The learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that the petitioner is prepared to cooperate with the investigation and to appear before the investigating officer on any day on which she is directed to appear. 8. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that before disposing of the Bail Application, an opportunity should be given to the petitioner to appear before the investigating officer. Accordingly, there will be a direction to the petitioner to appear before the investigating officer at 9 A.M. on 8th and 9th February,2010. 9. Post on 15/02/2010. 10. It is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that the petitioner will not be arrested until further orders in connection with Crime No. 540 of 2009 of Binanipuram Police Station, Ernakulam. B.A. NO. 155 OF 2010 :: 4 :: The petitioner shall produce copy of this order before the investigating officer.” 2. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Public Prosecutor that the direction in the order dated 2.2.2010 has been complied with by the petitioner. 3. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of the offence and also taking note of the fact that the direction in the order dated 2.2.2010 has been complied with by the petitioner, I am of the view that anticipatory bail can be granted to the petitioner. There will be a direction that in the event of the arrest of the petitioner, the officer in charge of the police station shall release her on bail on her executing bond for Rs.15,000/- with two solvent sureties for the like amount to the satisfaction of the officer concerned, subject to the following conditions: a) The petitioner shall appear before the investigating officer for interrogation as and when required; b) The petitioner shall not try to influence the prosecution witnesses or tamper with the evidence; c) The petitioner shall not commit any offence or indulge in any prejudicial activity while on bail; B.A. NO. 155 OF 2010 :: 5 :: d) In case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, the bail shall be liable to be cancelled. The Bail Application is allowed to the extent indicated above. (K.T.SANKARAN) Judge ahz/