IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Bail Appl No. 7913 of 2007()
1. VASANTHI, W/O. LATE THANKACHAN,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.S.RAJEEV
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
Dated :03/01/2008
O R D E R
R. BASANT, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
B.A.No. 7913 of 2007
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 3rd day of January, 2008
O R D E R
Application for anticipatory bail. The petitioner, along
with the co-accused, who is the brother of the deceased husband
of the petitioner, faces allegations for offences punishable, inter
alia, under Sections 326 and 308 I.P.C.
2. The crux of the allegations against the petitioner is that
she, who was allegedly found by the defacto complainant to be in
a compromising position with the first accused, husband of the
defacto complainant, attacked the defacto complainant along with
her husband resulting in very serious injury to the victim. The
alleged incident took place on 6.12.2007. Within 1 = hours, the
victim had reached the doctor to whom the alleged cause has
been narrated clearly as attacked by her husband and his lover.
The F.I.R. was registered on 13.12.2007, where fairly detailed
narration of the incident is given. Investigation is in progress.
The petitioner apprehends imminent arrest.
B.A.No. 7913 of 2007
2
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is
strain in the relationship between the first accused and the defacto
complainant – spouses. Fanciful allegations are being raised against
the petitioner herein by the defacto complainant on the unjustified
assumption that she is responsible for the strain in their relationship.
The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that at present the
allegations are being directed against the petitioner in an attempt to
save the first accused, the husband of the defacto complainant. It is
prayed that anticipatory bail may be granted to the petitioner.
4. The learned Prosecutor opposes the application. He submits
that all available indications now point convincingly to the complicity
of the petitioner. The petitioner does not deserve to arm herself with
an order of anticipatory bail, submits the learned Prosecutor.
5. I have considered all the relevant inputs. At the request of the
court the case diary was placed before me. I have perused the same.
At this early stage of investigation I shall not embark on any detailed
discussion on merit about the acceptability of the allegations raised or
the credibility of the data collected. Suffice it to say that on an anxious
B.A.No. 7913 of 2007
3
consideration of all other relevant circumstances, I am unable to
perceive any features in this case, which would justify the invocation
of the extra ordinary equitable discretion under section 438 Cr.P.C. in
favour of the petitioner. This, I agree with the learned Prosecutor, is a
fit case where the petitioner must be directed to appear before the
Investigator or the learned Magistrate having jurisdiction and then seek
regular bail in the ordinary course.
5. This application is accordingly dismissed. I may
however hasten to observe that if the petitioner appears before the
learned Magistrate and applies for bail after giving sufficient prior
notice to the Prosecutor in charge of the case, the learned
Magistrate must proceed to pass orders on merits, in accordance with
law and expeditiously.
(R. BASANT)
Judge
tm