IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Bail Appl..No. 3628 of 2010()
1. MISS JAYA DEVI, AGED 36 YEARS, D/O.
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
... Respondent
2. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
For Petitioner :SRI.SHERLY THOMAS
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MRS. Justice K.HEMA
Dated :/ /
O R D E R
K.HEMA, J
-----------------------
B.A No.3628 OF 2010
--------------------------------
Dated this the 18th day of June 2010
ORDER
This petition is for anticipatory bail.
2. The alleged offences are under Sections 505(1)(b) and
507 of IPC. According to prosecution, petitioner instigated first
accused to make a phone call to certain persons stating that a
bomb is kept in a hall wherein marriage is to be conducted and
thereby cause panic among public. First accused accordingly
made phone calls to several persons as instructed by first
accused and thereby caused panic in the public. On a complaint,
first accused was arrested and on investigation, it is revealed that
second accused also committed the offences.
3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that petitioner
is the daughter of a freedom fighter. Certain people are on
inimical terms with her and she is falsely implicated in the case.
First accused made calls from his grandfather’s number and her
phone was not used by first accused. There is absolutely nothing
to connect petitioner with the crime. Offence under Section 505
is not attracted, since the calls made are to private individuals.
The only non-bailable offence alleged is under Section 505, but
that is not attracted, it is submitted..
B.A No.3628 OF 2010 2
4. This petition is opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor
submitted that petitioner is a relative of first accused and
petitioner went to house of first accused and asked him to make
the calls. First accused is aged only 18 years and petitioner is
aged 36 years. According to first accused, she had told him that
some amount is due from one Balaji to her and that is why phone
calls were to be made. Petitioner’s interrogation will be required
to find out why she has committed the offence.
5. On hearing both sides and on going through Case Diary, I
am satisfied of the submissions made by the Learned Public
Prosecutor. Investigation is in progress and I am satisfied that
petitioner is required for interrogation. This is not a fit case to
grant anticipatory bail. As per Section 505 IPC, whoever makes
or circulates any statement or rumor with intend to cause or
which is likely to cause fear or alarm to the public or to any
section of people, whereby any person may be induced to commit
an offence against the State or against public tranquility will be
liable under Section 505 IPC. The only non-bailable offence
involved in this case is under Section 505 IPC and other offences
are, admittedly bailable. On a reading of Section 505 IPC, it
appears that petitioner has a strong and arguable case regarding
involvement of the said Section in the case, in the light of the
B.A No.3628 OF 2010 3
expression contained in Section 505 IPC, “whereby any person
may be induced to commit an offence against the Stage or
against the public tranquility” etc. In the above circumstance, the
following order is passed.
(1) Petitioner shall surrender before the Investigating
Officer within seven days from today.
(2) On such surrender, if petitioner is arrested, Section
505 of IPC will be treated as not included, for the
purpose of bail.
Petition is disposed of accordingly.
K.HEMA
JUDGE
vdv