Anjali vs The Sub Inspector Of Police on 23 February, 2010

Kerala High Court
Anjali vs The Sub Inspector Of Police on 23 February, 2010
       

  

  

 
 
  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/

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes:

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *