IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA THURSDAY, THE 4TH SEPTEMBER 2008 / 13TH BHADRA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 5375 of 2008() ------------------------------------ CRMP.2134/2008 of SESSIONS COURT, ALAPPUZHA CRIME NO.488/2008 OF THE CHERTHALA POLICE STATION .................... PETITIONER/ACCUSED : ----------------------------- MADHUKUTTAN, S/O.PANKAJAKSHAN PILLAI, AGED 36, MADHURIMA, PALLIPURAM PANCHAYATH, PALLIPURAM.P.O, CHERTHALA. BY ADV. SRI.C.K.SAJEEV RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT: ------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.K.S.SIVAKUMAR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K. HEMA, J. ------------------------------------------------ Bail Appl.No. 5375 of 2008 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 4th day of September, 2008. ORDER Petition for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Sections 454, 461 and 380 of IPC. According to prosecution, the petitioner has allegedly committed theft of 4.5 sovereigns of gold ornaments from the house of the de facto complainant and a complaint was lodged by him alleging strong suspicion against the petitioner who is his neighbour. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner is absolutely innocent of the allegations made. The incident occurred some time prior to 9.6.208 and the compliant was lodged on 20.7.2008, after a long delay. Even in the first information statement, the de facto complainant has only expressed his strong suspicion against the petitioner and that too on flimsy grounds. The two circumstances pointed out in the first information statement are that (i) the petitioner has not turned up or visited the de facto complainant even after knowing that 4.5 sovereigns were lost and that (ii) the petitioner has developed some intimacy with a jewellery shop owner after the incident. Merely because, the petitioner did not take any [B.A.5375/08] 2 interest to go to his neighbour's house or that he had gone to the jewellery shop, nobody can say that petitioner committed the offence. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there was an allegation that the petitioner and the de facto complainant's wife developed some intimacy and the de facto complainant 's brother had a quarrel with the petitioner and from April 2008 onwards, the petitioner has stopped going to the house of de facto complainant. 4. This petition is strongly opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor pointed out that the jewellery shop owner was questioned by the police and it is revealed that petitioner had sold 4.5 sovereigns of gold to him stating that those ornaments belonged to his wife. Petitioner's wife was questioned and she stated that she did not have any such ornaments. Therefore, petitioner is made an accused in the crime and he is required for the purpose of interrogation and it may not be proper to grant anticipatory bail in an offence of this nature. The delay occurred because the de facto complainant took some time to confirm the role of petitioner in the offence and he made enquiries by himself and hence the delay. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that recovery of the ornaments is not effected so far, even though it is stated that the articles are found to be sold to the jewellery shop owner. This itself will indicate the falsity of the allegations made. Learned Public [B.A.5375/08] 3 Prosecutor submitted that the investigating officer is of the view that recovery can be effected after arrest of the accused. It is also submitted that gold ornaments which are allegedly sold by the petitioner to the jewellery shop owner are available in the shop but those are not seized so far. Learned Public Prosecutor also made it clear that the intention of the investigating officer is not to effect any recovery under section 27 of the Evidence Act. After hearing both sides, I find that in the nature of the allegations made and in the light of the evidence already collected, it may not be proper to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. The defect or discrepancy in the investigation with respect to the non- seizure of the stolen article may not be sufficient to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Petition is dismissed. K. HEMA, JUDGE. Krs.