Manoj vs State Of Kerala on 23 September, 2009

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Bail Appl..No. 4667 of 2009()


1. MANOJ,S/O.LATE BALAN,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. STATE OF KERALA,
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.T.RAMPRASAD UNNI

                For Respondent  :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.T.SANKARAN

 Dated :23/09/2009

 O R D E R
                       K.T.SANKARAN, J.
                 ---------------------------------------------
                        B.A.No.4667 of 2009
                 ---------------------------------------------
           Dated this the 23rd day of September, 2009




                              ORDER

This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section

438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner is the sole

accused in Crime No.315 of 2009 of Vatakara Police Station.

2. The offence alleged against the petitioner is under

Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. The prosecution case is that on 21.4.2009, one Sujitha

committed suicide. Her husband is working abroad. She has

two children. She was aged 30 years. The petitioner is the

relative of her husband. The prosecution case is that the

petitioner developed intimacy with Sujitha and they had frequent

meetings. On 19.4.2009, at 2 A.M., while the petitioner was

coming out of the house of Sujitha, he was caught by the people

of the locality. Thereafter, Sujitha was taken to her parental

home by her relatives. It is alleged that Sujitha was conducting

the kuri business which her husband was conducting before

going abroad. The petitioner was assisting her in the business

BA No.4667/2009 2

activity. The petitioner got the ornaments of Sujitha and they

are with him. After the incident on 19.4.2009, it is alleged that,

Sujitha requested the company of the petitioner which was

refused by him. He also refused to return the ornaments or

money. These incidents prompted Sujitha to commit suicide.

4. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the

case, the nature and character of the offence and the allegations

made against the petitioner, I do not think that the petitioner is

entitled to get the discretionary relief under Section 438 of the

Code of Criminal Procedure. Custodial interrogation of the

petitioner may be required in the present case. If the petitioner

is granted anticipatory bail, it would adversely affect the proper

investigation of the case.

For the aforesaid reasons, the Bail application is dismissed.

K.T.SANKARAN,
JUDGE
csl