IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA WEDNESDAY, THE 18TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 29TH MAGHA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 6925 of 2008() ----------------------------------------- (CRIME NO. NOT KNOWN OF MALA POLICE STATION) APPLICANT:ACCUSED NO.1: ---------------------------------------------- P.GIREESH KUMAR VADAPPURATHU HOUSE, KANAYANNUR,CHOTTANIKKARA POST. BY ADV. MR.P.VIJAYA BHANU RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT: ---------------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM REPRESENTING S.I.OF POLICE , MALA POLICE STATION. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR. K.S.SIVAKUMAR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/02/2009 ALONG WITH B.A.NO. 6934 OF 2008,B.A.NO. 7017 OF 2008 AND B.A.NO.7067 OF 2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss K. HEMA, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= B.A. Nos. 6925, 6934, 7017 and 7067 of 2008 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this the 18th day of February, 2009 O R D E R Petitions for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offence is under section 381 read with section 34 IPC. According to prosecution, on 29-10-2008 at about 2 p.m. accused 1 to 4, in furtherance of common intention, broke open the 'offering chest' in Ashtamichira Temple, committed theft of Rs.2,000/-, locked the chest thereafter by using another lock and thereby committed the offences. Accused nos. 2 and 4 broke open the lock and 3rd accused gave a fresh lock for locking the chest. The incident occurred in the presence of 1st accused Devaswom Officer. 3. Learned counsel for 1st accused submitted that 1st accused is a Devaswom Officer in another temple and he has nothing to do with the temple from where the incident happened. He was on official duty on that day and he did not commit any offence, as alleged. Even admittedly he was only standing there. 4. Learned counsel for 2nd accused submitted that 2nd accused is a staff of Annamanada Temple which is a totally different temple and he has no role in the offence. He went to the temple, as requested by the officer. BA 6925/2008 & con.cases -2- 5. Learned counsel for the 3rd accused submitted that the only allegation is that 3rd accused gave a lock for locking the chest again but that will not constitute any offence as alleged. According to 4th accused, eye witness has only stated that 4th accused was found standing nearby, which will not constitute any offence. 6. It is pointed out by all counsel that eye witness was admittedly standing in the nearby compound and the incident could not have been seen from the adjacent compound since, there are walls on all sides of the temple. It is also pointed out that there is delay in lodging the complaint, even though there is eye witness to the occurrence. 7. This petition is opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that petitioners appeared before the Investigating Officer, as directed by this Court and they were interrogated. The case diary reveals that petitioners are involved in the offence. The conduct of accused in not raising any objection to the breaking open the lock and then locking it using another lock, etc. and taking away the money itself are incriminating, it is submitted. On the facts of this case this is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail, it is submitted. BA 6925/2008 & con.cases -3- On hearing both sides, considering the serious allegations made, I am satisfied that this is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. Petitioners may seek remedy in the ordinary course under section 437Cr.P.C., if so advised. Crime was registered as early as on 1-11-2008 and petitioners are bound to surrender. Hence, the following order is passed:- 1) Petitioners are directed to surrender before the Investigating Officer without any delay and co- operate with the investigation. Whether they surrender or not, police is at liberty to arrest them and proceed in accordance with law. 2) No further application for anticipatory bail by petitioners in this crime will be entertained by this Court, since on the facts in this case, this Court ordered that these are not fit to grant anticipatory bail and any order to the contrary in any subsequent anticipatory bail application will amount to review, which is impermissible in law. The petitions are dismissed. K.HEMA, JUDGE. mn.