IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN FRIDAY, THE 19TH AUGUST 2011 / 28TH SRAVANA 1933 Bail Appl..No. 5740 of 2011() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.405/2011 OF VELLARADA POLICE STATION PENDING BEFORE THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT - III, NEYYATTINKARA .................... PETITIONER/ACCUSED: ------------------------------ STELLA MARY,W/.O.DOMENIC, SHINE HAVANA, KARATHUVILA, VELLARADA BY ADV. SRI.G.SUDHEER RESPONDENT(S)/STATE: --------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKUALM PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR.V.MANU THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ------------------------------- B.A.NO.5740 OF 2011 ----------------------------------- Dated this the 19th day of August, 2011 O R D E R This is an application for anticipatory bail filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. Petitioner is the accused in crime No.405 of 2011 of Vellarada Police Station registered for the offence under section 381 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The gist of the prosecution case is that the petitioner, who was working in a financial concern, by name, “Adam finance”, of the de facto complainant, as manager trainee, had committed theft of gold ornaments of 103 grams which were pledged in that concern by some parties. The investigation of the crime is in progress with recoveries of some of the stolen articles already effected, allegedly from another financial concern where it is stated to have been pledged, initially, by the B.A.No.5740/2011 2 accused, and later, in the name of her mother. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that false allegations being were made against her over the theft, and also pledging of gold ornaments stolen, she had approached the police for a fair investigation of the crime. Copies of the petitions submitted to the Superintendent of police and other authorities are also enclosed as annexures to the petition. The allegations imputed against her are totally false, that she had no role over the pledging of the ornaments, and it was not part of her job to deal with the ornaments pledged in the concern of the de facto complainant, is the submission of the counsel. Opposing the application, the learned public prosecutor submitted that during the course of investigation, nine items of gold ornaments, involved in the stolen ornaments, which were pledged in another concern, 'Muthoot finance” at Vellarada, were recovered, and those items at the time of recovery were pledged in the name of the mother of the accused, with some among those items previously, in the name of the accused. Such pledging of the ornaments was made hardly one month before the registration of the crime, and, after recovery, some of those, who had pledged B.A.No.5740/2011 3 gold ornaments at the financial concern of the de facto complainant had identified their ornaments as among the recovered items, which, prima facie, indicating the culpability of the accused in the offence imputed in the case. Her custodial interrogation, in such circumstances, is essential for a fair investigation, is the further submission of the public prosecutor. 4. Considering the submissions made and taking note of the facts and circumstances presented, and more particularly, with reference to the recovery effected by the investigating agency, which points the needle of suspicion at the petitioner/accused, I find this is not a fit case where she can be granted pre-arrest bail. This application is, therefore, dismissed. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN JUDGE prp B.A.No.5740/2011 4