IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN TUESDAY, THE 23RD FEBRUARY 2010 / 4TH PHALGUNA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 205 of 2010 CRIME NO.5 OF 2010 OF SREEKARIYAM POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. PETITIONER: ------------------- LATHA .S, AGED 33 YEARS W/O.CHANDRAKUMAR,THUNDUVILA VEEDU ARCHANA NAGAR,PONGUMOODU,ULLOOR, MEDICAL COLLEGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.S.RAJEEV SRI.K.K.DHEERENDRAKRISHNAN RESPONDENT: --------------- THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE SREEKARIYAM POLICE STATION REPRESENTED THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.V.TEKCHAND THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------ B.A. NO. 205 OF 2010 ------------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 23rd day of February, 2010 O R D E R This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner is the accused in Crime No.5 of 2010 of Sreekariyam Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 461 and 381 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The prosecution case is the following: 39.75 sovereigns of gold, Rs.1,15,000/- and a one hundred dollar currency were stolen from the house of the de facto complainant. The de facto complainant is a retired woman aged about 80 years. The petitioner was working as a maid servant in the house of the de facto complainant from 1.5.2009 to 31.12.2009. The First Information Statement was laid on 7.1.2010. According to the de facto complainant, the petitioner did not attend to her duties after 31.12.2009. B.A. NO. 205 OF 2010 :: 2 :: 4. The petitioner submits that apart from the petitioner, another maid servant was also working in the house of the de facto complainant. The duty time of the petitioner was from 7 AM to 3 PM while that of the other maid servant was from 4 PM to 7 AM on the next day. The learned counsel for the petitioner also pointed out that some construction activities were going on in the house of the de facto complainant during December 2009 and ten workers were engaged in the said activities. In short, the submission is that the other maid servant and certain other workers had also access to the various places in the residence of the de facto complainant and there is no justification for believing that the petitioner has committed the theft. 5. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that there are enough materials to come to the prima facie conclusion that the petitioner is involved in the offence. The petitioner was found in the company of an autorickshaw driver and they were found spending amounts after the date when the offence was alleged to have been committed. It is submitted that the materials collected during investigation point to the complicity of the petitioner in the offence. B.A. NO. 205 OF 2010 :: 3 :: 6. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature and gravity of the offence and the allegations levelled against the petitioner, I do not think that this is a fit case where anticipatory bail can be granted to the petitioner. If anticipatory bail is granted to the petitioner, it would adversely affect the proper investigation of the case. For the aforesaid reasons, the Bail Application is dismissed. (K.T.SANKARAN) Judge ahz/