IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA THURSDAY, THE 19TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 30th MAGHA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 711 of 2009() ---------------------------- (CRIME NO.50/2009 OF KARUNAGAPPALLY POLICE STATION) PETITIONER/ACCUSED: -------------------- SHAREEF @ KUNJUMON,AGED 43,RESIDING AT SHAJI BHAVAN,MANNANTHALA,TRIVANDRUM-15. BY ADV. SMT.C.G.PREETHA RESPONDENT(S): --------------- STATE OF KERALA,REP.BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.K.S. SIVAKUMAR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K. HEMA, J. --------------------------------------------------- Bail Appl. No. 711 of 2009 --------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 19th day of February, 2009. ORDER Petition for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Sections 454 and 380 of IPC. According to prosecution, petitioner (A3) along with other accused, in furtherance of common intention, removed the tile of a temple and committed theft of 500 years old “Thirumudi”. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that there is civil dispute regarding the management of the temple between the de facto complainant on one side and first and second accused on the other. A suit was also filed relating to the management of the temple. It is also submitted that criminal cases also have come up because of the dispute. A crime was registered against de facto complainant as accused. It is also submitted that first accused is in management of the temple and hence the offence of theft could not have been committed by him. Third accused is the son in law of first accused and his was a second marriage. It was conducted as per the Special Marriage Act. To prove these facts, Annexures-I to III are produced, which [B.A.No.711/09] 2 are copy of marriage certificate, copy of F.I.R, copy of the plaint in the suit etc. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor opposed this anticipatory bail application. It is submitted that de facto complainant is in administration of the temple and there was an attempt by the first accused to take over the administration and civil disputes have arisen because of this dispute. There was an attempt to prevent the de facto complainant from administering the temple and there are other criminal cases also. The 3rd accused is the son-in-law of first accused and he is not a Hindu and he belongs to another religion. The third accused also has active role in the commission of the offence. The investigation is at the initial stage and the article is to be recovered for which petitioner's custodial interrogation will be required. The stolen “Thirumudi” is 500 years old and it has to be recovered, it is submitted. 5. On hearing both sides, considering the serious nature of the allegations made and also the nature of investigation required, which includes recovery of the valuable stolen article also, it is essential that petitioner is made available for custodial interrogation. Hence, it may not be proper to grant anticipatory bail. The crime is registered as early as on 9.1.2009 [B.A.No.711/09] 3 and petitioner is bound to surrender. Hence, the following order is passed: 1) Petitioner shall surrender before the investigating officer forthwith and co-operate with the investigation. Whether he surrenders or not, police is at liberty to arrest him and proceed in accordance with law. 2) No further application for anticipatory bail by the petitioner in this crime will be entertained by this Court. Petition is dismissed. K. HEMA, JUDGE. Krs.