IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT TUESDAY, THE 5TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 16TH MAGHA 1929 Bail Appl..No. 714 of 2008() ---------------------------- CRIME NO. 63/08 OF NEDUMANGAD POLICE STATION CMP.428/2008 of J.M.F.C.-II,NEDUMANGAD .................... PETITIONER/A5 --------------------------- SHINY, D/O. SULEKHA BEEVI GAFSAL NIVAS, MANAKODE, HOUSING COLONY NETTA, THEKKUMKARA MURI, NEDUMANGAD VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.NAGARAJ NARAYANAN SRI.SAIJO HASSAN SRI.A.S.SABU RESPONDENTS: ------------- STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. S.U. NAZAR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - B.A.No. 714 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 5th day of February, 2008 O R D E R Application for regular bail. The petitioner, a woman, faces allegations in a crime registered under Section 395 I.P.C. The crux of the allegations is that the defacto complainant was requested by the petitioner to come to her to hand over an amount of Rs.15,000/- as loan. The defacto complainant was proceeding to the house of the petitioner. He did not know the house. He contacted the petitioner. He asked the first accused to explain the way to her house. The first accused thereafter was asked to guide the defacto complainant to the house of the 5th accused. The first accused allegedly, along with the other accused, went to the defacto complainant and committed robbery/dacoity and robbed the defacto complainant of the costly articles and cash which he was carrying. 2. While the prosecution alleges that the petitioner/A5 also had contumacious involvement in the crime and that she was B.A.No. 714 of 2008 2 party to the scheme of the other accused to rob the defacto complainant, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that at the moment there is absolutely nothing to even remotely infer that the petitioner had any contumacious role in the alleged acts committed by the co-accused. 3. The learned Prosecutor submits that the available indications do point to the complicity of the petitioner, though certainly the complicity of the co-accused and that of the petitioner may be significantly different. In that view of the matter, the learned Prosecutor submits that the State has no objection in regular bail being granted to the petitioner, subject to appropriate terms and conditions. 4. I have considered all the relevant inputs. It is unnecessary to embark on a detailed discussion on merit about the acceptability of the allegations raised or the credibility of the data collected. Suffice it to say that on an anxious consideration of all other relevant circumstances, I am satisfied that the petitioner, a woman, who has been remaining in custody from 23.1.2008, can now be enlarged on bail, subject to appropriate terms and conditions. B.A.No. 714 of 2008 3 5. In the result: 1) This application is allowed. 2) The petitioner shall be released on bail on the following terms and conditions. (a) The petitioner shall execute a bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to be satisfaction of the learned Magistrate. (b) The petitioner shall make herself available for interrogation before the Investigating Officer between 10 a.m. and 12 noon on all Mondays and Fridays for a period of two months and thereafter as and when directed by the Investigating Officer in writing to do so. (R. BASANT) Judge tm