High Court Kerala High Court

Bindu vs State Of Kerala on 17 October, 2007

Kerala High Court
Bindu vs State Of Kerala on 17 October, 2007
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Bail Appl No. 6267 of 2007()


1. BINDU, S/O.SOJAN, AGED 30 YEARS,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.JOICE GEORGE

                For Respondent  :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT

 Dated :17/10/2007

 O R D E R
                         R. BASANT, J.
           -------------------------------------------------
                   B.A. No. 6267 OF 2007
           -------------------------------------------------
         Dated this the 17th day of October, 2007

                              ORDER

Application for anticipatory bail. The petitioner is the 7th

accused in the crime. She as well as the 6th accused are both

employees of a finance company. They, it is alleged, had

committed misappropriation, defalcation etc., in the finance

company in which they were working. Audit was impeding.

They wanted the evidence to be destroyed so that the

misappropriation, defalcation etc., would not come to light.

They allegedly contacted the principal accused i.e., A1 who, in

turn, engaged A2 to A5. An amount of Rs.35,000/- was agreed

to be paid to A1 by A6 and A7. That amount was raised by

pledging the gold ornaments of the 6th accused. A7 promised

A6 to give her share later. The amount was delivered to A1

who, in turn, engaged accused 2 to 5. Accused 2 to 5 are

B.A. No.6267 OF 2007 -: 2 :-

mercenaries. They allegedly attempted to break open into the

finance establishment and create evidence to have committed

theft. But the plan did not succeed. The local people, who

heard the attempts of the accused in the establishment, collected

and apprehended some of the accused. The crime was

accordingly registered. Initially, the role of A6 and A7 was not

revealed. The interrogation of the apprehended accused and

others have now led the police to the conclusion that it was at

the instance of A6 and A7 that the conspiracy took place and that

the accused 2 to 5 were only higher links who carried out the

mission of the conspirators at the establishment. Accused No.6

has been arrested. Her confession has been recorded.

Investigation in in progress. The petitioner apprehends

imminent arrest.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

petitioner is absolutely innocent. She has nothing to do with the

conspiracy. It is, in these circumstances, prayed that the

petitioner may be granted anticipatory bail.

3. This application is opposed by the learned Public

Prosecutor. The learned Public Prosecutor submits that the

B.A. No.6267 OF 2007 -: 3 :-

available indications clearly point to the culpable involvement of

the petitioner herein also. Confession of the co- accused i.e.,

A6, clearly reveals the role played by the petitioner herein.

There are indications to suggest that the petitioner had made

phone calls to the 1st accused and the 1st accused had returned

calls in respect of the conspiracy and the further events. At any

rate, this is not a fit case where the discretion under Sec.438 of

the Cr.P.C. can or ought to be invoked, submits the learned

Public Prosecutor.

4. The Case Diary has been perused by me. In particular,

the confession statement of the 6th accused has been perused.

At this early stage of the investigation, I shall not embark on a

detailed discussion on the acceptability of the allegations or the

credibility of the data collected. Suffice it to say that, on an

anxious consideration of all the relevant inputs, I find no features

in this case which would justify or warrant the extraordinary

equitable discretion under Sec.438 of the Cr.P.C. This, I am in

agreement with the learned Public Prosecutor, is a fit case where

the petitioner must resort to the normal and ordinary course of

appearing before the Investigating Officer or the learned

B.A. No.6267 OF 2007 -: 4 :-

Magistrate having jurisdiction and then seek regular bail.

Needless to say that if she so seeks regular bail, she will

certainly be entitled to invoke the compassion of law in favour of

a person like the petitioner – a woman. She has an infant child,

it is submitted.

5. With the above observations, this bail application is

dismissed.

Sd/-

(R. BASANT, JUDGE)

Nan/

//true copy//

P.S. to Judge