IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA MONDAY, THE 25TH AUGUST 2008 / 3RD BHADRA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 5281 of 2008() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.348/08 OF KONNY POLICE STATION PETITIONER --------------------------- SUSHEELA, AGED 58 YEARS, KAUNAMPALAVILAYIL, THUVAYOOR VADAKKU MURI ERATHU VILLAGE, ADOOR TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA. BY ADV. SRI.AJITH MURALI RESPONDENTS: ------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI.K.S.SIVAKUMAR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. ----------------------------------------- B.A.No.5281 of 2008 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 25th August, 2008 O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Sections 328 and 392 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code. According to prosecution, accused 1 and 2 took the alleged victim to a bar and liquor was given to him by adding some sedative. When the victim fell unconscious, his chain and ring were removed by them. This was handed over to the petitioner, who received the same knowing the articles to be stolen. She pledged the same in a bank and raised money. The offence was revealed when first accused was arrested in connection with another crime and he confessed. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that the articles are already recovered, pursuant to a confession statement given by the first accused. This fact is revealed from the FIR itself. It is also submitted that since recovery is over, the petitioner, who is a woman, may be granted anticipatory bail. The petitioner is nothing to do with the crime, it is submitted. It is also submitted that the petitioner and her husband are living separately from each other and they have no connection with each other. BA.5281/08 2 4. This petition is opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that as per the investigation, the petitioner has received the stolen article knowing them to be stolen and it was pledged in her name in the Surya Financiers and document is also seized relating to the pledging. On the facts of this case, it is not proper to grant anticipatory bail, it is submitted. 5. On hearing both sides and on going through the case diary, I find that in the nature of the allegations made against the petitioner and in the light of the materials now available in the case diary, it may not be proper to grant anticipatory bail in an offence of this nature. This petition is dismissed. K.HEMA, JUDGE vgs.