IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Bail Appl..No. 451 of 2010()
1. ANJALI,W/O.KRISHNA MOORTHY @ RAJU
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE
... Respondent
2. STATE REP BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
For Petitioner :SRI.CIBI THOMAS
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.T.SANKARAN
Dated :23/02/2010
O R D E R
K.T.SANKARAN, J.
------------------------------------------------------
B.A. NO. 451 OF 2010
------------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 23rd day of February, 2010
O R D E R
Accused No.10 (Anjali) in Crime No.221 of 2009 of Bekal
Police Station, Kasaragod, seeks bail under Section 439 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner was arrested on 15-10-2009.
The investigating officer has filed charge sheet in the case before the
Court of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class II, Hosdurg and the
case is pending as C.C. No.818 of 2009.
2. The case is popularly known as Periya Bank robbery case.
The prosecution case is that between 11.30 P.M. on 17-6-2009 and
1.45 A.M. on 18-6-2009, accused Nos.1 to 7 and 13 stealthily
entered into the first floor of North Malabar Gramin Bank, Periya
branch, by removing the window and committed theft of 33.012
kilograms of gold and Rs. 6,74,272/-.
3. It is stated that accused Nos.3,4,6,8,9,10 and 11 were
arrested. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that a quantity of
11.548 Kilograms of gold and Rs.10 lakhs were recovered.
B.A. NO. 451 OF 2010
:: 2 ::
4. The petitioner, Anjali, is the wife of Accused No.3
Krishnamoorthy and sister of Accused No.11 Sekhar. It is submitted
that except accused No.8 ( Haneefa), all the other accused persons
are related to each other. Haneefa had purchased considerable part
of the gold, knowing fully well that the gold was stolen. The records
reveal that accused No.3 is involved in several theft cases. Accused
No.3 Krishnamoorthy and family had come to Kannur several years
ago. His father had acquired an extent of 10 cents of land in Kannur.
The accused persons (except Haneefa) belong to Kallakurichi village
in Tamil Nadu. They are residing in different places in Tamil Nadu.
5. After committing the offence, the gold and money were
divided by the persons involved in the operation. The third accused
entrusted a portion of the gold with his wife, the petitioner herein
and sold the rest with the help of accused No.8 Haneefa. She kept
the gold concealed. After the arrest of the third accused, by the time
the police party reached the place near Pondicherry where the
petitioner and family were residing on rent, she had shifted the
residence. Later, the police found out the place of residence of the
petitioner. The police came to know that by that time, the petitioner
was arrested by Kallakurichi Police in Crime No.691 of 2009 of
B.A. NO. 451 OF 2010
:: 3 ::
Kallakurichi Police Station for the offence under Section 379 of the
Indian Penal Code. She was produced before the Judicial
Magistrate of the First Class II on production warrant.
6. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that accused No.3
has purchased a property in Tamil Nadu for more than Rs.16 lakhs.
Accused No.3 is involved in several theft cases in Kerala and Tamil
Nadu. The petitioner is also involved in other theft cases.
7. The petitioner moved for bail before the Sessions Court,
Kasaragod. That application was dismissed by the order dated 12th
January 2010.
8. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
petitioner being a woman is entitled to special protection and that she
is entitled to be released on bail. The counsel also submitted that
since the investigation is over, there is no reason why the petitioner
should be detained further.
9. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the
case, I am of the view that the petitioner is not entitled to be released
B.A. NO. 451 OF 2010
:: 4 ::
on bail. The offence alleged against the petitioner is grave in nature.
The accused persons are alleged to have committed robbery of gold
worth more than Rs.4.5 crores. The accused persons are related to
each other. They are involved in several theft cases. The petitioner
belongs to Tamil Nadu. The police could trace her out with great
difficulty. If the petitioner is released on bail, it would be difficult for
the investigating officer to arrest the rest of the accused persons. It
is also most likely that the petitioner may make herself scarce. The
chances of the petitioner involving herself in theft cases also cannot
be ruled out.
For the aforesaid reasons, the Bail Application is dismissed.
(K.T.SANKARAN)
Judge
ahz/