High Court Kerala High Court

Prameela Kukharji vs C.I. Of Police on 20 June, 2008

Kerala High Court
Prameela Kukharji vs C.I. Of Police on 20 June, 2008
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Bail Appl..No. 3975 of 2008()


1. PRAMEELA KUKHARJI, WORKING AS POST
                      ...  Petitioner
2. JOSE.A.J, WORKING AS SUPERINTNEDENT
3. V. PUSHKALADEVI, WORKING AS ASSISTANT
4. K. NARASIMHA NAICKEN, WORKING AS
5. V. JOPSEH STANLEY, WORKING AS OFFICE
6. K.J. MERECY AMMA, WORKING AS

                        Vs



1. C.I. OF POLICE, NORTH POLICE STATION,
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.N.NAGARESH

                For Respondent  :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

The Hon'ble MRS. Justice K.HEMA

 Dated :20/06/2008

 O R D E R
                                    K. HEMA, J.
                 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
                              B.A.No. 3975 of 2008
                  - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
                    Dated this the 20th day of June, 2008

                                       O R D E R

Application for anticipatory bail.

2. On a complaint filed by a Post Woman, a crime is registered

against the petitioners, who are officials in the postal department. They are

Post Mistress, Superintendent of Post Offices, Inspector (Public

Grievances), etc. The crime is registered on the basis of a complaint made

by the defacto-complainant to the Chairman of the Scheduled Castes and

Scheduled Tribes Development Corporation, which was forwarded to the

police.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that there were

several complaints against the defacto-complainant while she was working

in the department that she was guilty of mis-appropriation of amount of

money orders and non-delivery of postal articles, etc. An enquiry was

conducted and she was found guilty also. There were large number of

complaints from public that non-delivery of article. She was on medical

leave from 10-1-2008 onwards. She had approached the Central

Administrative Tribunal for orders against the action taken against her, but

BA 3975/08 -2-

not even any interim order was passed in her favour. Since the department

took a firm stand against her, she has filed a complaint to pressurize the

officers to consider her case favourably.

4. On hearing both sides and on going through the complaint, I find

that no allegation is made against the petitioners that they committed the

offence, not being members of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe. Only

if a person not being a member of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled

Tribes commit certain acts against member of Scheduled Caste or Tribe, the

offence under section 3 will be attracted.

5. In the circumstances, I find anticipatory bail can be granted to the

petitioners and the following order is passed:-

1. Petitioners shall surrender before the

Investigating Officer within seven days from today

and make themselves available for interrogation.

2. On their surrender and arrest if any, they shall be

released on bail on their executing a bond for

Rs.25,000/- each with solvent sureties each for the

like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting

officer on condition that they will co-operate with

the investigation and report before the

BA 3975/08 -3-

Investigating Officer as and when directed.

The application is allowed as above.

K. HEMA,
JUDGE.

mn.