IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Bail Appl..No. 5646 of 2009()
1. R.SHEEBA, D/O.NIRMALA,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE
... Respondent
2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
For Petitioner :SRI.V.VENUGOPALAN NAIR
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.T.SANKARAN
Dated :09/02/2010
O R D E R
K.T.SANKARAN, J.
---------------------------------------------
B.A.No.5646 of 2009
---------------------------------------------
Dated this the 9th day of February, 2010
ORDER
When the Bail Application came up for hearing on
28.1.2010, the following order was passed:
“This is an application for anticipatory bail
under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure. The petitioner is the accused in Crime
No.353 of 2009 of Anchal Police Station, Kollam
District.
2. The offence alleged against the
petitioner is under Section 409 of the Indian Penal
Code.
3. The petitioner is a Gramin Dak Sevak
Sub Postmaster, Perumannur Extra Departmental
Sub Post Office. The allegation is that the
petitioner misappropriated a sum of Rs.22,300/- of
the depositors.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner
as well as the learned Public Prosecutor submitted
that the petitioner had deposited a total sum of
Rs.32,801/- on 8.9.2008.
5. In the facts and circumstances of the
case, I am of the view that before disposing of the
Bail Application, an opportunity should be given to
the petitioner to appear before the investigating
BA No.5646/2009 2
officer. Accordingly, there will be a direction to the
petitioner to appear before the investigating
officer at 9 A.M. on 3rd and 4th February, 2010. The
petitioner shall produce a copy of this order before
the investigating officer.
6. Post on 9th February, 2010.
It is submitted by the learned Public
Prosecutor that the petitioner will not be arrested
until further orders in connection with Crime
No.353 of 2009 of Anchal Police Station, Kollam
District.”
2. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the
petitioner as well as the learned Public Prosecutor that the
direction contained in the order dated 28.1.2010 has been
complied with by the petitioner.
3. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the
case, the nature of the offence and also taking note of the fact
that the direction in the order dated 28.1.2010 has been
complied with by the petitioner, I am of the view that
anticipatory bail can be granted to the petitioner.
There will be a direction that in the event of the arrest of
the petitioner, the officer in charge of the police station shall
release her on bail on her executing bond for Rs.15,000/- with
BA No.5646/2009 3
two solvent sureties for the like amount to the satisfaction of the
officer concerned, subject to the following conditions:
a) The petitioner shall appear before the investigating officer
for interrogation as and when required;
b) The petitioner shall not try to influence the prosecution
witnesses or tamper with the evidence;
c) The petitioner shall not commit any offence or indulge in
any prejudicial activity while on bail;
d) In case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above,
the bail shall be liable to be cancelled.
The Bail Application is allowed to the extent indicated
above.
K.T.SANKARAN,
JUDGE
csl