ORDER : 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader. The petitioner is accused of having committed the murder of his wife and mother-in-law. 2. The background is as follows:- As per the complaint dated 20.7.2015, at about 5.30.p.m. Lakshmi, the complainant had been to her mother’s house to visit her and when she went there, she saw her mother Leelamma and younger sister Vasantha were killed and they had obviously been murdered brutally. She had therefore informed her relatives and neighbours. It was learnt by the complainant that the murders may have been committed by her brother-in-law, namely, her sister’s husband who was known to have been suspecting the fidelity of her sister and was known to have been continuously harassing her over this and that this was a situation for quite some time and in spite of elders having intervened, he had not changed his attitude. It is on this basis that a complaint was registered and after investigation, it was suspected that the petitioner was indeed the person who had committed the murders. It is however stated that he had been arrested at 12.15a.m. on 21.7.2015, when he was found sitting in a park. Inexplicably, it is also stated in yet another version that the petitioner had immediately after having committed the murder proceeded to the police station and had surrendered and volunteered information that he had committed the murder of his wife and the mother-in-law. These contrary versions are not sought to be reconciled in the charge sheet having been filed. Further, the statement of CWs.2 and 3, who are said to be the owners of the premises where the mother-in-law was staying, has been recorded to indicate that they had seen the accused at or about the commission of the murder, which is estimated at about 5p.m. That he had come down from the second floor of the house and picked up clothes from his scooter, which was parked on the ground floor and then he had gone up to change his clothes. However, the said witnesses have not indicated that they had seen any blood stained clothes. However, the said witnesses have not indicated that they had seen any blood stained clothes. It is thereafter sought to be recreated that after the petitioner was taken into custody on the next day, on the basis of his statement, he was taken by two constables on his direction to a place where he had left his scooter and the blood stained clothes and a cell phone which were in the scooter are said to have been recovered. 3. It is pointed out by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that contrary versions of the prosecution as to the manner in which the accused is said to have been apprehended or that he had voluntarily surrendered cannot be reconciled. Further, even if the recovery is said to have been made in the manner as stated by the petitioner himself, it cannot be reconciled with the fact that he had already surrendered on the previous day at 5 p.m. These contradictions would necessarily have to be established at the trial in order to bring home the charges against the petitioner. Mere statement of CWs.2 and 3 of having seen the accused come out of the house and again go back is again unnatural. If a man had committed murder, he would want to certainly leave the place at once and since he had scooter at hand, he would have fled. It is not also the statement of the said witnesses that he was in blood stained clothes. The further coincident is that the complainant had already seen the dead bodies and she had come out. It is thereafter that the petitioner is said to have been seen coming from the second floor. Incidentally, the complainant does not refer to the presence of CWs.2 and 3 and the statements of CWs.2 and 3 were recorded two days thereafter. It is also stated that the petitioner is suffering from stomach ulcer and the treatment provided at the present hospital is inadequate and he is continuously suffering and has been in custody for the past one year eight months without the prospect of the trial commencing in the near future. The learned Counsel, therefore, would submit that in the presence of these contrary versions which require to be reconciled and established at the trial, the petitioner seeks to be enlarged on bail. 4. The learned Counsel, therefore, would submit that in the presence of these contrary versions which require to be reconciled and established at the trial, the petitioner seeks to be enlarged on bail. 4. In any event, the Government Pleader would interject to point out that CW.3 in her statement would indicate that she heard cries from the house of the deceased and she thought that there was usual quarrel between the petitioner and his wife and had later come out of the house along with CW.2 and had seen the petitioner in blood stained clothes go down the ground floor and pick up a fresh set of clothes and again go up to the place of the incident. This statement appears to be unnatural. First of all, the petitioner would have tried to hide himself after having committed the murder and even if he had come down and was seen by CW.2, there would have been blood in the place of murder. The petitioner having ventured to go down and pick up a fresh set of clothes and go up to the place of incident appears to be unnatural. Therefore, the petitioner has made out a case for enlargement on bail. (i) The petition is allowed. The petitioner shall be enlarged on bail on his executing a self bond in a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-with a surety for a like sum to the satisfaction of the court below. (ii) The petitioner shall not tamper or prevail upon the prosecution witnesses in any manner. (iii) The petitioner shall attend the court on all dates of hearing. (iv) The petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the court below without prior permission. (v) the petitioner shall cooperate with the Investigating Authority.