IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN MONDAY, THE 22ND JUNE 2009 / 1ST ASHADHA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 3247 of 2009 CRIME NO.486 OF 2009 OF CHENGANNUR POLICE STATION PETITIONER: ACCUSED: ------------------------------ LILLYKUTTY PHILIPOSE MANNIL PEEDIKAYIL, PUTHENCAVU PO, CHENGANNOOR. BY ADV. SRI.RINNY STEPHEN CHAMAPARAMPIL RESPONDENT: COMPLAINANT: --------------- STATE OF KERALA REP BY SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE CHENGANNUR POLICE STATION, THROUGH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.K.S.SIVAKUMAR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------ B.A. NO. 3247 OF 2009 ------------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 22nd June, 2009 O R D E R This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner is the accused in Crime No.486 of 2009 of Chengannur Police Station. 2. The offence alleged against the petitioner is under Section 380 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The prosecution case is that on 5.5.2009, the accused came to the house of the de facto complainant, had lunch there and slept in the verandah of the house. At about 3 PM, the husband of the de facto complainant went to take a bath, after removing his gold chain weighing 8½ sovereigns of gold. The chain was placed underneath the bed. The allegation is that the accused took away the chain and left the house. In spite of the request made by the de facto complainant to return the chain, the accused left the place on her scooter without returning the chain. The First Information Statement was given by the de facto complainant to the police on 12.6.2009 and it was registered as Crime No.486 of 2009 on that day. B.A. NO. 3247 OF 2009 :: 2 :: 4. This Bail Application was filed on 9.6.2009. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the husband of the de facto complainant and the husband of the accused were working together in Doha and they were close friends. The husband of the de facto complainant came to India recently. There was money transaction between the husband of the de facto complainant and the accused. Money were due to the accused. In spite of the demand, the amount was not paid. This case is foisted against the accused on account of the enmity towards the accused as she demanded immediate return of the amount due from the husband of the de facto complainant. 5. The incident allegedly occurred on 5.5.2009. The First Information Statement is dated 12.6.2009. The delay is attempted to be explained in the First Information Statement. It is stated that mediators had intervened and they assured that the gold chain would be returned to the de facto complainant, but she did not get the chain and, therefore, she approached the police. 6. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of the offence and other circumstances, I am of the view that anticipatory bail can be granted to the petitioner. There will be a direction that in the event of the arrest of the petitioner, the officer in charge of the B.A. NO. 3247 OF 2009 :: 3 :: police station shall release her on bail on her executing bond for Rs.25,000/- with two solvent sureties for the like amount to the satisfaction of the officer concerned, subject to the following conditions: a) The petitioner shall appear before the investigating officer for interrogation as and when required; c) The petitioner shall not try to influence the prosecution witnesses or tamper with the evidence; d) The petitioner shall not commit any offence or indulge in any prejudicial activity while on bail; e) In case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, the bail shall be liable to be cancelled. The Bail Application is allowed to the extent indicated above. (K.T.SANKARAN) Judge ahz/