The petitioner is accused No.3 in crime No.1641/2014 of Paravur Police Station in Kollam district, for offence now registered under Section 306 of the IPC. The incident arose out of the suicide committed by the sister-in-law (brother's wife) of the petitioner herein, who took up her life by jumping in front of a running train, who has thus died on 18.9.2014. The above said crime was registered by the Paravur Police Station initially under Section 174 of the Cr.P.C. and later, after due investigation, the proceedings under Section 174 of the Cr.P.C. were deleted and new offence under Sections 306 and 498A read with Section 34 of the IPC has been added on 27.9.2014. Accused No.1 is the husband of the deceased Sunisha, accused No.2 is the mother of the husband and accused No.3 is the brother of the husband of the deceased. The petitioner has approached this Court apprehending arrest praying for grant of anticipatory bail by invoking the remedy under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. 2. Heard Sri.V.Venugopalan Nair, the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that A2 in this crime (mother-in-law of the deceased) has already been granted anticipatory bail by this Court as per order dated 8.10.2014 in B.A.No.7141/2014. That the petitioner herein, who is accused No.3, is the brother of the husband of the deceased and that he has been living with his family, separately from the house, in which the deceased lady and others were residing and that the petitioner herein is innocent of all the allegations raised in the crime. It is further prayed that the plea of anticipatory bail may be allowed and that the petitioner is prepared to comply with any conditions that may be imposed by this Court and he would fully co-operate with the investigation in the manner required by the investigating officer.
4. The learned Public Prosecutor would submit that the case of the petitioner herein stands on a entirely different footing. He submitted that this Court had granted anticipatory bail to A2 mainly taking into consideration the fact that she is an aged mother, etc. The Prosecutor, on instructions, submits that A1, who is the husband of the deceased, is now in Gulf and it is quite reasonable to presume that he may not turn up to the State due to the pendency of this crime and, therefore, the main person to be interrogated now is the petitioner, in order to effectuate the fair and proper conduct of the investigation. The Prosecutor submits that the investigating officer has given instructions to him to submit that the petitioner is influencing and threatening the witnesses of the locality, which has really hampered the hands of the investigating officer for the conduct of the effective investigation in the case. The investigation disclosed that the deceased lady had repeatedly suffered many harassments at the hands of the accused, including the petitioner herein. In these circumstances, the Prosecutor would strongly oppose the pre-arrest bail in this case.
5. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor and on an evaluation of the facts and circumstances of this case, this Court is inclined to hold that, in view of the aspects pointed out by the Prosecutor, this is not a fit case to exercise discretion to allow the plea of pre-arrest bail. Accordingly, the application for anticipatory bail stands dismissed.
Sd/-
sdk+ ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.S. to Judge