IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA THURSDAY, THE 12TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 23RD MAGHA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 335 of 2009() ---------------------------- (CRIME NO.720/08 OF NEYYATTINKARA POLICE STATION) PETITIONER/ACCUSED: -------------------- A.LATHA, AGED 30 YEARS, D/O. KRISHNAMMA, SAJI BHAVAN, ALAMPOTTA, PERUMAZHUTHOOR P.O., NEYYATTINKARA, THIRUVANATHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.SERGI JOSEPH THOMAS RESPONDENT(S): --------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, NEYYATTINKARA, THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.K.S. SIVAKUMAR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K. HEMA, J. --------------------------------------------------- Bail Appl. No. 335 of 2009 --------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 12th day of February, 2009. ORDER Petition for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offence is under Section 395 of IPC. According to prosecution, petitioner is the 7th accused and she telephoned to de facto complainant with whom she had an affair. He went to her and from there she took him to an autorickshaw to a place and when they were about to reach the place, A1 to A6 came there, and voluntarily caused hurt to de facto complainant and robbed two telephones and Rs.5000/-. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that petitioner is innocent of the allegations made. Even as per the admitted case of de facto complainant, he was having an affair with petitioner and he had accompanied her to her house but on the way robbery was committed but petitioner has no role in the incident, it is submitted. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor pointed out that it is not correct to say that petitioner has no role in the offence. Even in the F.I. Statement, indications are there that offence was committed with the connivance and knowledge of petitioner who was employed by other accused to commit the offence. They made the petitioner to make a phone call to the de facto [B.A.No.335/2009] 2 complainant and bring him to the place where the offence was committed. However, there is no objection to grant anticipatory bail on condition that petitioner will surrender before investigating officer and co-operate with the investigation. 5. On hearing both sides, I am satisfied that anticipatory bail can be granted to petitioner on conditions. Hence, the following order is passed: 1) Petitioner shall surrender before the investigating officer within seven days from today and co- operate with the investigation and make herself available for interrogation. 2) In the event of arrest of petitioner, she shall be released on bail on her executing a bond for Rs.25,000/- with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the arresting officer. 3) Petitioner shall report before the investigating officer as and when directed and co-operate with the investigation. 4) Petitioner shall not influence or intimidate any witness or commit any offence while on bail. Petition is allowed. K. HEMA, JUDGE. Krs.