IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA FRIDAY, THE 6TH JUNE 2008 / 16TH JYAISHTA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 3664 of 2008() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.186/08 OF THRISSUR WEST POLICE STATION PETITIONER/ACCUSED: ------------------------------------ K.V. RUGMANY, W/O. P.S.CHANDRAN, AGED 56 YEARS, PERUMBILLY HOUSE, PERUVAMKULANGARA DESOM, OLLUR P.O., THRISSUR TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.BECHU KURIAN THOMAS RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT: ------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM (THROUGH SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, THRISSUR WEST POLICE STATION). BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.M.S.BREEZ THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. ----------------------------------------- B.A.No. 3664 of 2008 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 5th day of June, 2008 O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. Petitioner was working as a Sheristdar in the Sub Court, Thrissur. She allegedly misappropriated 160 sovereigns of gold ornaments, which are the material objects in S.C.No.87 of 1983 of the Sub Court, Thrissur. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that the petitioner retired from service as early as on 31.3.2007. The present complaint is given only after expiry of more than one year on 29.4.2008. In between, two persons had taken charge as Sheristdar-in charge. Smt.Valsala took charge from the petitioner as Sheristdar-in-charge, on retirement of petitioner on 31.3.2007. While taking charge, the practice is that each item of gold ornaments and the valuables will be verified and in case any article is missing, it will be immediately reported and charge will not be taken. But, Smt.Valsala has not made any complaint in respect of missing of any gold ornaments and she took charge also. Smt.Valsala also retired thereafter and the present Sheristdar, who BA.3664/08 2 is the defacto complainant took charge as Sheristdar from Smt.Valsala on 25.9.2007, as seen from first information statement. 4. But, according to defacto complainant, the gold ornaments in S.C.87 of 1983 are now found missing and those were not handed over to her while she took charge. But, there is nothing in the first information statement to show that she had refused to take charge. It is only after about one year of her taking charge that the present complaint is made stating that the petitioner had not handed over the gold ornaments to Smt.Valsala and Smt.Valsala in turn, did not hand over the same to the present Sheristdar. 5. It is submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that after the retirement, the petitioner received a memo and she had given reply as per Annexure A4. She has stated all the details in the same. It is specifically stated that if any ornament is missing, the person, who takes charge, will refuse to take charge and make a report. But, when the successor took charge after verifying the material objects and signing the charge report, she did not make any complaint and she had no case that she had not received any material objects from the petitioner. Thus, the missing would not have been noticed as stated in the first information statement and petitioner cannot be implicated in the crime. 6. According to petitioner, the missing as per her enquiry, a BA.3664/08 3 Property Clerk, Sri.Krishnakumar has absented himself and is on unathorised absence continuously for a long period. He absented himself without giving any leave application and he has not attended the office so far. The said Clerk had access to the gold ornaments being the Property Clerk and it is easy for him to remove some materials from the box if he desired to do so. It is also to be noted here that there will be annual verification of the material objects by the respective courts there is nothing in the first information statement to show that any missing was found out by the court. 7. This petition is opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that 160 sovereigns of gold ornaments are involved in the case and hence granting of anticipatory bail may not be proper. But on hearing both sides, especially the various facts discussed above, I find that it is a case where suitable directions have to be issued to protect the interest of both sides. Hence the following order is passed: (1) Petitioner shall surrender before the investigating officer to make herself available for custodial interrogation. (2) Thereafter, in the event of her arrest, if any, petitioner shall be produced before the learned Magistrate concerned, in accordance with law. BA.3664/08 4 (3) On production of the petitioner before the Magistrate, petitioner 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 Magistrate Court on the following terms and conditions: i) Petitioner shall report before the investigating officer as and when directed by him. ii) Petitioner shall not leave Thrissur district, except with the previous permission of the Magistrate Court. Iii) Petitioner shall not influence any witness or tamper with evidence and in case there is any complaint to that effect, the bail is liable to be cancelled. This petition is disposed of accordingly. K.HEMA, JUDGE vgs.