IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA FRIDAY, THE 9TH JULY 2010 / 18TH ASHADHA 1932 Bail Appl..No. 3852 of 2010() ----------------------------- CMP.2882/2010 of J.M.F.C.-II,HOSDRUG .................... (CRIME NO.221/2009 OF BAKEL POLICE STATION) PETITIONER ------------------------------ ANJALI, W/O.KRISHNAMOORTHY @ RAJU, AGED 23 YEARS,PLLAMEDU, PEELAMEDU P.O., KILLIKURISY TALUK,VILLUPURAM,TAMIL NADU. BY ADV. SRI.S.RAJEEV RESPONDENT(S): --------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BPY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM(CRIME NO.221/2009 OF BEKEL POLICE STATION, KASARGODE) PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI,C.K.SURESH THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J ----------------------- B.A No.3852 OF 2010 -------------------------------- Dated this the 15th day of July 2010 ORDER This petition is for bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Sections 457, 380, 461, 411 and 414 r/w Section 34 of IPC. According to prosecution, accused Nos. 1 to 14, in furtherance of their common intention committed theft of articles worth Rs.4.5 cores (gold ornaments and money) from North Malabar Gramin Bank. Certain articles were disposed of and properties were purchased. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that petitioner is a woman aged 25 years and she is detained in prison along with her one year old daughter. She has been languishing in prison for a period of 258 days, with effect from 15/10/2009, for more than nine months. The only allegation against petitioner is that she has committed offences under Section 411 and 414 of IPC. Petitioner is not admittedly involved in offences under Section 120(B) or 379 of IPC. So, whatever be the serious nature of the allegations made in respect of the manner in which the theft is committed or the conspiracy is hatched, such allegations may not be applied against petitioner to refuse bail, it is submitted. 4. Petitioner is prepared to abide by any conditions imposed by this court. The only apprehension of the prosecution appears to be B.A No.3852 OF 2010 2 that the petitioner will abscond. Her husband is in prison. She is also prepared to reside within the limits of Bekal Police Station. It is also submitted that petitioner was actually not absconding as stated but, she had to go from place to place, since her husband was arrested in connection with this crime. The over tacts committed by petitioner are not serious, as projected by prosecution, it is submitted. The future of a girl which aged only one year may be taken into consideration and bail may be granted, it is urged. 5. Learned counsel for petitioner also pointed out that there are altogether 90 witnesses in this case and several documents and material objects are to be marked and the case cannot be disposed of in the near future. Petitioner has already undergone 258 days of detention. PW1 was examined on 30/03/2010 and in spite of expiry of four months, only 11 witnesses could be examined in this case. But, the delay in trial did not occur due to any reason contributed by petitioner. 6. For various reasons, trial is getting delayed, but petitioner has not done anything to protract trial, it submitted. But, petitioner may not be detained until the trial is over, since it is likely to take a very long time, it is submitted. It is also pointed by petitioner's counsel that the maximum punishment which can be given is only three years imprisonment. Even if petitioner is convicted, sentence can be suspended under Section 389 of Cr.P.C., it is pointed by petitioner's B.A No.3852 OF 2010 3 counsel. Petitioner is prepared to appear before court on all days of postings and she shall also appear before investigating officer on everyday at any time, as directed by this court, it is submitted. 7. Learned Public Prosecutor opposed this bail application and submitted that trial has already commenced. 11 witnesses are already examined. Several documents are marked. It is also submitted that prosecution is taking all possible steps to see that trial is completed without any delay. The examination of PW1, who is a bank Manager took 7 days to complete. Therefore, it is difficult to have a day-to-day posting also. It is also submitted that this is the third application for bail and the court has considered the chances of petitioner absconding and the trial getting protracted and dismissed the bail application. 8. It is also submitted by learned Public Prosecutor that on getting information that petitioner is in Pondicherry, police reached there. But, petitioner went to some other place and shifted from place to place and arrest was extremely difficult. It is also submitted that she was carrying with her the relevant documents from place to place whenever she shifted from place to place. The king pin is petitioner's husband. It is revealed that as per the evidence so far produced, prosecution has a strong case against petitioner, it is submitted. 9. However, it is conceded that the offences alleged against petitioner are only under Sections 411 and 414 of IPC. Learned Public Prosecutor also submitted that the mere fact that a one year old child B.A No.3852 OF 2010 4 is there along with petitioner may not be by itself a ground to grant anticipatory bail. Still, if the court is granting bail, stringent conditions may be imposed, to ensure her presence during the trial, it is submitted. 10. On hearing both sides, I find that petitioner stands trial only for offences under Section 411 and 414 of IPC. It is true that petitioner's husband is the alleged king pin etc., and he is in still custody. But, petitioner has no involvement in the offence of criminal conspiracy or the theft, as conceded. Further, as pointed out by learned counsel for petitioner, even if petitioner is convicted, the maximum punishment being three years imprisonment, the sentence can be suspended by the trial court itself. In such circumstances, all what the court has to safe guard is to ensure petitioner's presence during trial so that trial is not protracted for want of her presence. There is nothing on record to show that petitioner has any role in protracting trial. Taking all facts and circumstances, and the fact that petitioner' s one year old baby is also in prison along with her, I find that petitioner can be granted bail by imposing appropriate conditions, to ensure her presence in court during trial. Hence, the following order is passed. (1) Petitioner shall be released on bail on her executing a bond for Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the trial court on the following conditions: B.A No.3852 OF 2010 5 (i) Petitioner shall reside within the limits of Hosdurg police Station, which is the nearest police station to the office of Dy.S.P, who is the present Investigating Officer, who is stationed at Kanhangad. (ii) The petitioner shall furnish her residential address at Hosdurg to the investigating officer as early as possible and at any rate, before she is released on bail, so that he would get sufficient time for verification. (iii) Petitioner shall report before Investigating Officer between 10 a.m and 1 p.m and also between 4 p.m and 7 p.m on everyday for a period of one month from today. (iv) Thereafter, petitioner shall report before the Investigating Officer on every Monday, Wednesday and Saturday between 10 a.m and 1 p.m until further orders. (v) Petitioner shall not leave the limits of police station within which crime is registered, without prior permission of the Investigating Officer or learned Magistrate. (vi) Petitioner shall not influence or intimidate any witnesses or tamper with any evidence either directly or through any other person. (vii) The sureties shall be local. Petition is allowed. K.HEMA vdv JUDGE