Anticipatory bail under Section 438 may be denied when the investigation necessitates custodial interrogation and involves serious allegations.

O R D E R

This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure . The petitioner is the accused in Crime No.115 of 2009 of Thrissur Town West Police Station.

2. The offence alleged against the petitioner is under Section

306 of the Indian Penal Code . The case was originally registered under Section 307 of the , but later it was altered as one under Section 306 of the .

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. I have also perused the case diary. The deceased Bindu was in love with the petitioner for the last four years. Bindu was working as a tailoress in the concern run by one Lakshmidevi. It is revealed that Unnikrishnan (petitioner) and Bindu resided together for about four months as paying guests in a house. Later, Bindu started residing in her house. It is also revealed that Unnikrishnan and Bindu went to Parassinikkadavu about eight days prior to the date of the incident. On 26.2.2009 at about 7.30 AM, Bindu came to the house of Unnikrishnan. The First Information Statement given by Bindu shows that she requested Unnikrishnan to marry her, but it was refused by Unnikrishnan and opposed by his sister. The sister of Unnikrishnan brought kerosene and poured kerosene on Bindu. She asked Unnikrishnan to set ablaze Bindu. He did it. Bindu sustained burn injuries and she was admitted in the hospital. Bindu died in the hospital on 27.2.2009.

4. Based on the First Information Statement given by Bindu, the crime was registered for the offence under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code . The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that investigation revealed that there was no attempt to commit murder and Bindu had poured kerosene and ignited by herself. However, the prosecution case is that the offence under Section 306 of the is made out. It is to be noted that after registering the crime under of the , on the death of Bindu, the offence was altered as one under Section 302 of the . Later, as the investigation revealed that no offence under Section 302 of the was made out, it was registered as one under of the . It is also submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that accused No.2, the sister of Unnikrishnan was deleted from the array of accused.

5. Prima facie, it is clear that there was a dispute between Unnikrishnan and Bindu. Bindu is no more. She died as a result of the burn injuries. The allegation is that Unnikrishnan was responsible for the suicide of Bindu. In view of the peculiar facts and circumstances as available in the case, I think custodial interrogation of the petitioner may be required in the case. The petitioner is not entitled to the discretionary relief under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure . If anticipatory bail is granted to the petitioner, it would adversely affect the proper investigation of the case.

For the aforesaid reasons, the Bail Application is dismissed.

(K.T.SANKARAN)

Judge ahz/