Petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. 2. Petitioners are accused Nos.2 and 3 in Crime No.839/2014 of Palakkad Town North Police Station registered for the offences punishable under Sections 306, 498(A) and 354A(ii) read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. Deceased Soumya, aged 25, was given in marriage to the first accused. Thereafter, at the matrimonial house, she was harassed and tortured to the maximum, by demanding more dowry and gold ornaments. Her life was so miserable, that she had no other go than to commit suicide. In the meanwhile, it is alleged that sexual overtures were repeatedly made towards her, by the first petitioner herein, who is none other than her father-in-law. She has complained about such sexual harassments from the part of her father-in-law, to the 1st accused. There was nobody to rescue her. Second petitioner is the sister of the first accused and the daughter of the first petitioner. Finally, the girl could not withstand with the harassment and tortures, and has committed suicide by hanging at her house on 11.7.2014.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor. The contents of the C.D. Prima facie reveal the complicity of the first petitioner, who is the second accused and also that of the first accused. At the same time, it seems that the allegations against the second petitioner, who is the third accused, are only very limited. The only allegation was that she was also instrumental in demanding more dowry. At the same time, there is nothing to show that, that was the reason why the girl had opted to commit suicide. For the continued investigation of the case, I do not think that the custodial interrogation of the second petitioner is required. Considering the facts that the second petitioner is a woman, the role attributed to her is very limited and the present stage of investigation, I am of the view that this is a fit case wherein anticipatory bail can be granted to the second petitioner. At the same time, custodial interrogation of the first petitioner is required for the continued investigation of the case and therefore, he is not entitled to the discretionary relief of anticipatory bail.
5. In the result, this bail application is allowed and the investigating officer or such other police officer, who is conducting the arrest of the second petitioner, is directed to enlarge the second petitioner on bail in the event of her arrest on her executing a bond for ₹25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the officer conducting arrest, and subject to the following terms and conditions:-
(i) The second petitioner shall report before the investigating officer in between 9 a.m. and 11 a.m. on all Thursdays and Mondays, commencing from 4.12.2014 for a period of three months or till the filing of the final report in this case, whichever is earlier.
(ii) The second petitioner shall not tamper with the evidence or influence witnesses.
(iii) The second petitioner shall make himself available for interrogation as and when required by the investigating officer.
(iv) The second petitioner shall not involve in any offence while on bail.
It is made clear that the violation of any of the conditions stipulated above will result in the cancellation of bail.
As far as the first petitioner is concerned, this Bail Application stands dismissed.
Sd/-
B.KEMAL PASHA, JUDGE dl // TRUE COPY // PA to Judge