SANTHOSH Vs. DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner, 3 in number, seek anticipatory bail on the allegation that the Vadakkanchery police are at their heels in connection with Crime No.196/07 registered for offences punishable under sections 498A and 306 read with section 34 IPC.

(2.) Petitioners are the brother-in-law, father-in-law and mother-in-law respectively of Anupama, who committed suicide on 16.5.07. The marriage between Anupama and Rajeev, son of the petitioners 2 and 3, was on 28.1.07.

(3.) Learned Public Prosecutor, on instructions, submitted that the petitioners 1 and 2 are not accused in the crime and that the 3rd petitioner, who was the mother-in-law, is the 2nd accused and Rajeev is the first accused. If so, the apprehension of arrest and harassment entertained by the petitioners 1 and 2 is unfounded. With regard to the 3rd petitioner with whom the deceased bride was residing after the marriage, it is too early to accept her contention that she has been falsely implicated in the case. Anticipatory bail cannot be granted in a case of this nature. There is no reason why she should not surrender before the Magistrate having jurisdiction and seek regular bail. Accordingly, if the 3rd petitioner surrenders before the Magistrate concerned and files an application for regular bail, within two weeks from today, the same shall be considered and disposed of, preferably on the same date on which it is filed. This application is disposed of as above.