IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Bail Appl..No. 155 of 2010()
1. KOCHUTHRESIA, AGED 64 YEARS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.DINESH MATHEW J.MURICKEN
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.T.SANKARAN
Dated :15/02/2010
O R D E R
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/