IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT TUESDAY, THE 4TH MARCH 2008 / 14TH PHALGUNA 1929 Bail Appl..No. 1269 of 2008() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.130/08 OF PERAMANGALAM POLICE STATION PETITIONERS ---------------------------- 1. MARY O.P., AGED 48, W/O. KOCHAPPAN, MANTHARA, OORAKAM, ARATTUPUZHA P.O., THRISSUR. 2. BIJI M.K., AGED 30, D/O. KOCHAPPAN, ULLATHIKULAM, PULLOOR, IRINJALAKKUDA, THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.SUBAL J.PAUL RESPONDENTS: ------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY S.I. OF POLICE, PERAMANGALAM, REP. BY STATE PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.JAI GEORGE. THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. ------------------------------------------------- B.A. No. 1269 of 2008 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 4th day of March, 2008 ORDER Application for anticipatory bail. The petitioners apprehend arrest as accused in Crime No.130/08 of the Peramangalam Police Station. In that crime, already there are two accused persons. They were arrested under suspicious circumstances. Their interrogation led the police to the conclusion that they have committed offences punishable under Sec.457 and 380 of the IPC. Interrogation of the 1st accused revealed that he had handed over the thieved articles to his wife – the 2nd petitioner herein. It is alleged that the 2nd petitioner/wife had disposed of the stolen articles. The 2nd petitioner has not been formally arrayed as an accused so far. Investigation is in progress. She has to be arrested and interrogated. Only then, can a decision be taken whether the B.A. No. 1269 of 2008 -: 2 :- 2nd petitioner deserves to be arrayed as an accused and whether she deserves to be arrested. 2. The learned Public Prosecutor points out that the statement of the 1st accused shows that the thieved articles was handed over to one Sari - his wife, and it was she who sold the articles to the jewellery. The 2nd petitioner describes herself as Biji, D/o. Kochappan. It is not possible, at the moment, to confirm whether the 2nd petitioner is the one who has to be proceeded against. 3. The learned Public Prosecutor, in these circumstances, submits that the 2nd petitioner may not be permitted to arm herself with an order of anticipatory bail. She may be directed to appear before the Investigating Officer. She has to co- operate with the Investigating Officer to enable him to complete the investigation. 4. The learned Public Prosecutor further submits that the 1st petitioner, who is the mother-in-law of the 1st accused, is not required to be arrested in connection with this crime and she shall not be arrested. I accept the said submission and undertaking of the learned Public Prosecutor. In these circumstances, application for B.A. No. 1269 of 2008 -: 3 :- anticipatory bail of the 1st petitioner can safely be dismissed. 5. In the result, this petition is dismissed accepting the submission of the learned Public Prosecutor that the 1st petitioner is not required to be arrested. Her prayer for anticipatory bail is dismissed. The 2nd petitioner's prayer for anticipatory bail is rejected as I find that there is absolutely no necessity to permit the said 2nd petitioner to be armed herself with an order or anticipatory bail when she faces interrogation by the police. 6. This petition is hence dismissed in so far as both the petitioners are concerned, though for different reasons. Sd/- (R. BASANT, JUDGE) Nan/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge B.A. No. 1269 of 2008 -: 4 :-