IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Bail Appl..No. 5766 of 2008()
1. SUSHEELA, AGED 58 YEARS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.AJITH MURALI
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MRS. Justice K.HEMA
Dated :06/10/2008
O R D E R
K. HEMA, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
B.A. No. 5766 of 2008
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 6th day of October,2008
O R D E R
Petition for anticipatory bail.
2. The alleged offences are under sections 328, 392 read
with section 34 IPC. According to prosecution, accused 1 and 2
added sedative in the liquor and gave it to the victim and when
he fell unconscious, his gold ornaments were removed by them.
Those were handed over to the wife of the 1st accused and she
received the same knowing them to be stolen. She, thereafter,
pledged the same in the bank and received money. The
commission of the offence by her was revealed on the
confession statement given by the 1st accused, when he was
arrested in connection with another crime.
3. Petitioner had filed an application for anticipatory bail
in this crime, but it was dismissed, as withdrawn. This is the
second attempt for anticipatory bail. Petitioner is involved in
another crime and she had also filed an application for
anticipatory bail in the said crime (Crime no.348/2008 of Konny
Police Station), which was dismissed by this Court. Learned
BA 5766/2008 2
Public Prosecutor submitted that on the facts of this case, it is
not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. The materials in the
case diary reveal involvement of petitioner in the crime and it is
evident that petitioner received stolen articles knowing that to
be stolen. The officials of the bank have given statement
implicating petitioner with pledging of the stolen articles in the
bank.
4. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that
Petitioner and her husband are living separately from each
other and they are not in good terms with each other.
Petitioner’s husband who is the 1st accused deliberately
implicated petitioner with the crime but she has absolutely
nothing to do with the crime. Petitioner is implicated only on
the basis of statement given by the co-accused and hence she
may be granted anticipatory bail, it is submitted.
5. On hearing both sides and on going through the case
diary, I found that allegations made against petitioners are
serious in nature. In the light of the allegations made, the
interrogation of petitioner by the police will be required and
hence it may not be proper to grant anticipatory bail, in an
offence of this nature. It is also to be noted that petitioner is
BA 5766/2008 3
involved in two crimes of similar nature. The incident occurred
as early as in May, 2008 and petitioner could not be arrested so
far. The investigation is in a stand still.
Therefore, petitioner is directed to surrender
before the Magistrate Court concerned or the
Investigating Officer within seven days from today
and co-operate with the investigation.
With this direction, this petition is dismissed.
K.HEMA, JUDGE.
mn.