IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA FRIDAY, THE 27TH JUNE 2008 / 6TH ASHADHA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 4125 of 2008() ----------------------------- CRIME NO. NOT KNOWN OF MANGALAM DAM POLICE STATION PETITIONER : ACCUSED ----------------- REV. FATHER DAVID P.VARGHESE PANCKAL HOUSE, KURUPPAMPADY METHALA P.O., PERUMBAVOOR NOW RESIDING AT EVANGEL HOUSE B-7/112, SAFDARJUNG ENCLAVE NEW DELHI-29. BY ADV. SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU SRI.VIPIN NARYAN RESPONDENT: COMPLAINANT ---------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.K.S.SIVAKUMAR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. ------------------------------------------- B.A.No.4125 of 2008 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 27th day of June, 2008 ORDER This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offence is under Section 379 IPC. 3. The petitioner is a priest. According to the prosecution, the petitioner's brother-in-law filed a complaint alleging that the car belonging to him along with RC book and other documents were stolen by the petitioner. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the allegation is absolutely false. The defacto complainant is a drunkard who is creating all sorts of problems in the family. He was treated several times for addiction as evidenced by medical certificate which is produced as AnnexureD. Defacto complainant used to drive the car, fully drunk and also pledge the car and incur financial liability which ultimately the family members were forced to pay off. Hence, his family members including his mother (after the death of his father) decided that the car be sold. This was mainly to safeguard the family from BA No.4125/08 2 financial liabilities. The affidavit of the defacto complainant's mother is produced along with bail application. It fully support the above contentions. It is also revealed that the car was actually sold through the petitioner, who is defacto complainant's sister's husband, after obtaining the sale letter and other documents from defacto complainant. She has also explained the circumstances under which the car was sold through the petitioner who is none other than her son-in-law. 5. Learned public prosecutor submitted that considering the nature of the allegations made, directions may be given to the petitioner to appear before the Investigating officer, especially since the car is to be recovered. But, he has no objection in granting bail. Hence, the following order is passed: (i) Petitioner is directed to appear before the Investigating officer within 7 days from the date of this order and make himself available for interrogation and co-operate with investigation. (ii) Thereafter, in the event of his arrest, if any, he shall be released on bail on his executing bond for Rs.25,000/- with BA No.4125/08 3 two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the arresting officer on condition that he will co-operate with the investigation. The petition is allowed. K.HEMA, JUDGE csl