IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.HEMA MONDAY, THE 7TH JUNE 2010 / 17TH JYAISTHA 1932 Bail Appl..No. 3305 of 2010() ----------------------------- (CRIME NO.150/2010 OF THANUR POLICE STATION) PETITIONER(S): -------------------- 1. SUKHADAN,KATTUPARAMBIL HOUSE PERIYAPURAM, THANUR. 2. MUKUNDAN, POUTHUPARAMBIL, PERIYAPURAM, THANUR. 3. ARAVINDAKSHAN, KURUKKANARI HOUSE PERIYAPURAM, THANUR. 4. GOPINATHAN, PATTAHIL HOUSE PERIYAPURAM, THANUR. BY ADV. SRI.M.P.ASHOK KUMAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- STATE ,SHO, THANUR POLICE STATION MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, REP BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.V.TEK CHAND THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J -------------------- Bail Application No.3305 of 2010 ---------------------------------------------- Dated this the 7th day of June 2010 ORDER This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Sections 378 r/w 34 IPC. According to prosecution, petitioners(A2 to A4) who are the members of the renovation committee along with other accused in furtherance of their common intention have take out Rs.1,00,000/- from the “Bhandaram” in a temple and thereby committed offence under Section 380 and 34 IPC. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioners were regularly opening the bhandaram and taking the amount, but, no offence under Section 380 IPC is involved. The key was obtained from the Madathipathi to open the bhandaram and money was taken out in the presence of public and it is accounted for. Madathipathi is the controlling authority of temple but recently proceedings are initiated for taking over the administration of the temple by the Devaswom Board. The proceedings are still continuing. The Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowment issued notification for appointment of a trustee and trustee was appointed in respect of temple. Challenging the Bail Application No.3305 of 2010 2 same, a Writ Petition was filed by the committee before this court and the Writ Petition is pending. A Division Bench of this court allowed the samithi to proceed with renovation work in the temple and renovation work has already started. The amount collected from the Bhandaram could be for the renovation, subject to proper accounting. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor pointed out that as per the materials available in the Case Diary, Rs.1,00,000/- was taken from the Bhandaram and it was deposited in an account opened in the name of the President, Secretary and Treasurer of the committee. 5. On hearing both sides and on going through Section 378 of IPC, I am satisfied that this is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail since it, prima facie, that no dishonest intention is involved. Hence following order is passed: (1) Petitioners shall surrender before the Magistrate Court concerned within seven days from today. (2) On such surrender, petitioner shall be released on bail on executing a self bond for Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) on Bail Application No.3305 of 2010 3 the following conditions: (i) Petitioners shall report before the Investigating Officer as and when directed and co-operate with investigation. (ii) Petitioner shall not influence or intimidate any witnesses or tamper with the evidence. Petition is allowed. K.HEMA, JUDGE vdv