High Court Kerala High Court

Saju Yohannan vs State Of Kerala on 20 November, 2008

Kerala High Court
Saju Yohannan vs State Of Kerala on 20 November, 2008
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Bail Appl..No. 6804 of 2008()


1. SAJU YOHANNAN, S/O. KOSHY YOHANNAN,
                      ...  Petitioner
2. SAJI, S/O. JOY, AGED 34 YEARS,
3. SHERLY, W/O. SAJI, AGED 30 YEARS,
4. ALEXANDER, S/O. KUNJUKUNJU,
5. KOCHUMARIYA, D/O, RAPHEL, AGED 78 YEARS,

                        Vs



1. STATE OF KERALA,
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE DICTECTIVE INSPECTOR,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.R.SURAJ KUMAR

                For Respondent  :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

The Hon'ble MRS. Justice K.HEMA

 Dated :20/11/2008

 O R D E R
                                K. HEMA, J.
        - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
                        B.A. No. 6804 of 2008
        - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
          Dated this the 20th day of November,2008

                                  O R D E R

Petition for anticipatory bail.

2. A crime was registered under section 174 Cr.P.C. under

the caption “unnatural death” on a complaint made by brother-in-

law of deceased Leena. She committed suicide by setting fire to

herself after pouring kerosene. According to prosecution, she

was physically and mentally tortured by her husband and close

relatives. She was also abetted to commit suicide. The fourth

accused who is brother-in-law committed theft of rubber sheet.

Since the deceased questioned him about this, she was brutally

assaulted by her mother-in-law, brother-in-law and sister-in-law.

Her hair was cut by force by her mother-in-law. She used to be

harassed by demanding money. Rs.50,000/- was promised to be

given at the time of marriage but her father could give only

Rs.20,000/-. By insisting for payment of Rs.30,000/- more she was

harassed.

3. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that there are

no specific allegations made against petitioners, in the year 2006.

But only subsequently the case was developed. The suicide was

BA6804 /08 -2-

on 9-10-2006. It is also submitted that the incident did not occur,

within seven years of the marriage. Learned counsel for

petitioners submitted that originally it was a case of accidental

fire but later, it was converted into a case of suicide, while

investigation was taken up by CBCID.

4. This petition is opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor

submitted that the crime was registered in the year 2006, but

petitioner could not be arrested so far. The nature of allegations

are serious. Petitioners are required for interrogation. The charge

sheet could not be submitted so far, since petitioners could not be

arrested and interrogated. As per the materials in the case diary,

deceased was subjected to severe nature of cruelty by her

husband and close relatives.

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

allegations made and the fact that petitioners will be required for

interrogation, I am satisfied that it is not a fit case to grant

anticipatory bail. No special circumstances are pointed out, which

would persuade this Court to grant anticipatory bail, by invoking

the extra-ordinary powers under section 438 Cr.P.C.

Petitioners are directed to surrender before

the Investigating Officer without any delay and co-

BA6804 /08                        -3-

      operate  with    the   investigation.   Whether   they

surrender or not, police is at liberty to arrest them

and proceed in accordance with law.

With this direction, this petition is dismissed.

K.HEMA, JUDGE.

mn.