Babu Naik vs The State Of Kerala Represented By on 14 January, 2009

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Bail Appl..No. 7798 of 2008()


1. BABU NAIK, S/O.KORUGU NAIK, KURINJI,
                      ...  Petitioner
2. SITHU BHAI, W/O.BABU NAIK, KURINJI,

                        Vs



1. THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.T.K.VIPINDAS

                For Respondent  :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

The Hon'ble MRS. Justice K.HEMA

 Dated :14/01/2009

 O R D E R
                                    K.HEMA, J.
                         -------------------------------------------
                               B.A.No.7798 of 2008
                         ------------------------------------------
                  Dated, this the 14th day of January, 2009

                                    ORDER

Petition for anticipatory bail.

2. According to the prosecution, the petitioners along with

their son (A1) allegedly harassed the defacto complainant’s daughter who

was the wife of the first accused, on demand of dowry, and she

committed suicide.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the

petitioners are absolutely innocent of the allegations made. The defacto

complainant’s daughter had some mental problem and she was taking

medicines also. She committed suicide only on account of her mental

illness. A crime was registered under the caption ‘unnatural death’ and no

injury was noted on the body of the deceased. Subsequently, it was at the

instance of the defacto complainant that a crime was registered against the

petitioners and their son. Learned counsel for the petitioners also

submitted that the first accused was already granted bail by the Magistrate

Court. Hence anticipatory bail may be granted to the petitioners.

4. This petition is opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor

submitted that on 15.2.2008 there was a phone call by the defacto

complainant to another person stating that she was being assaulted at the

house of the husband. There is clear evidence regarding the harassment

B.A.No.7798 of 2008
2

meted on her by the petitioners. Specific allegations are made against the

petitioners. It is also submitted that charge sheet has not been filed so far

and the investigation is in progress. Hence it is not a fit case to grant

anticipatory bail.

5. On hearing both sides and considering the nature of the

allegations made, I do not think it is a fit case to grant anticipatory bail.

Though an allegation is made that the defacto complainant’s daughter

committed suicide because of her mental illness, no documents are

produced to establish the same. Nothing was pointed out also and there is

only mere assertion to that effect. In the above circumstances I am not

inclined to grant anticipatory bail. Crime was registered as early as on

15.2.2008 and the petitioners were not available for interrogation and

investigation.

Hence, petitioners are directed to surrender before the

investigating officer or the Magistrate Court concerned, within

ten days from today and co-operate with the investigation.

Whether they surrender or not, police is at liberty to arrest them

and proceed with in accordance with law.

K.HEMA, JUDGE
vns