IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA MONDAY, THE 16TH AUGUST 2010 / 25TH SRAVANA 1932 Bail Appl..No. 4095 of 2010() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.175/2010 OF KUTHIATHODE POLICE STATION, ALAPPUZHA .................... (S): PETITIONER ------------------------------ B.SOMAKUMAR BHAT S/O.GOVINDA VADHYAR, SANMITHRA BHAVAN THIRUMALA BHAGOM PO, THURAVOOR. BY ADV. SMT.MINI.R.MENON RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE KUTHIATHODE. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.TEK CHAND. THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. ---------------------------------------------- Bail Application No.4095 of 2010 ---------------------------------------------- Dated 16th August, 2010. O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offence are under Sections 380 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. According to prosecution, petitioner(A1), who is the chief priest of a temple, along with second accused, in furtherance of common intention, committed theft of two gold chains worn on the idol, one weighing 37.700 gms. and the other, 8 gms. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that petitioner is one of the Poojaries in the temple and as per the practice, every month, there is a change in Poojari. Accordingly, he handed over the charge to the second accused in the month of Meenam. At that time, charge of ornaments and valuables were also handed over to the second accused. There are also documents to establish the same. But, as per the present allegation, petitioner did not hand over two gold chains to the second accused, who allegedly found that two chains were missing. A complaint was also given by the Devaswom to the BA NO. 4095/10 2 police. Petitioner has nothing to do with the offence, it is submitted. 4. Petitioner appeared before the Investigating Officer on 4.8.2010, as directed by this Court, but he was not questioned by the police, it is submitted. He therefore, filed a written statement before the police with the signature, on 6.8.2010. It is not correct to say that petitioner did not co-operate with the investigation, it is further submitted. 5. This petition is opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that petitioner appeared before the Investigating Officer , as per the direction of this Court. He was also questioned by the Investigating Officer, but he did not co-operate with the investigation. The gold chains are to be recovered. For this purpose, custodial interrogation will be required, it is submitted. 6. On hearing both sides and considering the various facts stated above, I am satisfied that this is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. I am satisfied that custodial interrogation of petitioner will be required for an effective investigation in this case. Hence, the following order is passed : (1) Petitioner shall surrender before the Investigating BA NO. 4095/10 3 Officer without any delay and co-operate with the investigation. (2) No further application for anticipatory bail by petitioner in this crime will be entertained by this court hereafter. Petition is dismissed. K.HEMA, JUDGE. tgs