The 1st petitioner is the 1st accused in Crime No.2190/2014 of Mathilakam Police Station, Thrissur District, who apprehends arrest in connection with the above said crime has chosen to file this application for pre-arrest bail. The 2nd petitioner is the 2nd accused in the said crime and she is the mother of the 1st petitioner. The marriage of the petitioner with the deceased lady had taken place on 24.6.2012 and after the marriage the 1st petitioner was employed in the Gulf countries for eleven months and now the 1st petitioner is working as a heavy vehicle driver and he is driving his own vehicle used for transporting fish. The wife of the petitioner is said to have committed suicide on 15.9.2014 at about 4:00 pm. The brother of the deceased gave First Information Statement before the police based on which the instant crime was registered for offences under Section 306(1)(c) of the IPC and after investigation, offence under Sections 498(A) & 304
(B) r/w 34 IPC have been added. Sri.V.M.Krishnakumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, would submit that the petitioner and his wife had lived peacefully in his house and that she was even reluctant to go to her parental house at Kochi. A few weeks ago, the 1st petitioner and his wife and his family relatives together gone for a trip to Munnar and spent few days there and on the night of 14.9.2014, the 1st petitioner had gone to Wayanad for transporting fish in the mini lorry and he was unable to contact his wife over telephone and on the next day he returned home and the wife complained of about not informing about the trip. He explained his inability in getting the telephone connection to speak with her and she had demanded some food items which he bought and he had to go to Kodungallur Town to take cash from the Automatic Teller Machine (ATM) of the bank concerned and when he returned to home after 4:00 pm on 15.9.2014, to his utter shock, he found his wife hanging in a ceiling fan and immediately she was taken to the hospital but, later she died. Both the parents of the petitioner and the petitioner were not in the house. It is further submitted that the First Information Statement given by the brother of the deceased does not disclose any serious allegations against the petitioners and that among other things it has been stated therein that on the day prior to the fateful day, at about 1:00 pm the deceased had telephoned her brother and informed him that she could not stay in the house of the husband and requested him to release her immediately whereupon he advised her not to any wrong in haste and he told that he would call her after calling the 1st petitioner and he could not telephonically contact the 1st petitioner and later, he contacted the 1st petitioner and informed about the problem expressed by the deceased and the 1st petitioner informed him that there was no such problems and that if any problem exists, the 1st petitioner could have informed him etc. Except such averments there are no specific allegations raised either against the 1st petitioner or his mother to connect them with the aforementioned crime. Sri.V.M.Krishnakumar, learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that on earlier occasion also, the deceased wife had attempted to commit suicide which was prevented by the 1st petitioner that she was very possessive of the 1st petitioner and the 1st petitioner or his mother has not in any way contributed to the suicide of the deceased. Sri.V.M.Krishnakumar, learned counsel for the petitioners, would further submit that the father of the 1st petiitoner is also residing in the same house and the family was living peacefully and that the 1st petitioner and his wife had a 1 ½ year old child. Sri.V.M.Krishnakumar, learned counsel for the petitioners, would further submit that the petitioners would fully co-operate with the investigation in any manner as decided by the investigating officer and this Court may exercise discretion and grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioners, especially keeping in view that there are no specific concrete allegations against either petitioners even in the First Information Statement lodged by the brother of the deceased which led to the registration of the instant crime. He would further urge that the 2nd petitioner, who is the mother of the 1st petitioner is an illiterate aged house wife.
2. The learned Public Prosecutor would submit that the investigation is not fully completed and in all fairness the Public Prosecutor has adverted this Court's attention to the First Information Statement lodged by the brother of the deceased. On a perusal of the First Information Statement it is seen that the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners are correct. The learned Public Prosecutor would further urge that in case this Court is inclined to grant pre- arrest bail to the petitioners then sufficient strict safeguards may be incorporated in the order so as to protect the bonafide interest of the prosecution.
3. After having due regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Public Prosecutor and on evaluating the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is inclined to exercise discretion to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioners. Accordingly, it is ordered that in the event of the petitioners being arrested in connection with the instant crime of Mathilakam Police Station, they shall be released on bail on their executing a bond for ` 35,000/- (Rupees Thirty Five Thousand only) each with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the investigating officer and subject to the following conditions:-
(i) The petitioners shall surrender their passports, if any, before the court below concerned within three days from the execution of the bail bond before the investigating officer and if either of them is/are not holder/s of passport/s, then they shall file affidavit to that effect in the said court. If the petitioners require their passport in connection with their travel abroad, then they are free to approach the court concerned for the release of the same and for necessary permission in that regard. In case if such an application is filed, the court below concerned is free to consider the same on merits and to pass appropriate orders thereon, taking necessary guidance from the principles laid down in the decision of this Court in the case Asok Kumar v. State of Kerala, reported in 2009 (2) KLT 712, notwithstanding the aforementioned conditions imposed by this Court.
(iii) The petitioners shall not involve in any criminal offence of similar or graver nature.
(iv) The petitioners shall co-operate with the investigation and report before the investigating officer as and when required.
(v) The petitioners shall not attempt to influence the witnesses or shall not tamper or tamper evidence in any manner whatsoever.
If the petitioners fail to comply with any of the conditions as ordered above, the bail granted to them are liable to be cancelled.
Accordingly, bail application stands finally disposed of.
bkn/-
ALEXANDER THOMAS, Judge.