Back
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
K.HEMA, J
SSHEELA – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
Bail Appl./5765/2008
Bail - Anticipatory Bail - IPC Sections 328, 392 - Summary: The court denied anticipatory bail to the petitioner based on her alleged involvement in receiving and pledging stolen property, highlighting the importance of her connection to the crime established through the confession of a co-accused.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought anticipatory bail, claiming she was uninvolved in the crime of receiving stolen goods, while the prosecution alleged she pledged stolen gold ornaments knowing they were stolen.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner was connected to the crime through evidence in the case diary, including a confession from a co-accused and statements from bank officials confirming her involvement in pledging the stolen goods.
Issues: Whether the petitioner was entitled to anticipatory bail despite evidence suggesting her complicity in the crime.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the significance of the evidence against the petitioner, including her intent and knowledge regarding the stolen articles at the time of pledging them.
Final Decision: The petition for anticipatory bail was dismissed.
O R D E R
Petition for anticipatory bail.
2. The alleged offences are under sections 328, 392 read with section 34 IPC . According to prosecution, accused 1 and 2 added sedative in the liquor and when the victim fell unconscious, his gold ornaments were removed by them. Those were handed over to the wife of the 1st accused and she received the same knowing to be the stolen. She thereafter, pledged the same in the bank and received money. Commission of the offence was revealed on the confession statement given by the 1st accused, when he was arrested in connection with another crime.
3. This is the second application for anticipatory bail.
Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that petitioner is a woman and she is living separately from her husband and she has absolutely no connection with the crime. The article was pledged in the name of petitioner, but she is not actually involved in the crime. She is made an accused only as per the confession statement given by the co-accused. There is nothing to connect her with the crime, it is submitted.
4. This petition is strongly opposed. It is pointed out that same contentions were considered in the order dated 25-8-
BA 5765/08 -2-
2008 in B.A. 5281/2008 and as per the materials available in the case diary, petitioner received the stolen article knowing them to be stolen and those were pledged in her name and the documents were also seized. The bank officials were questioned and it is revealed that petitioner herself has pledged the articles.
5. On hearing both sides and on going through the case diary, I had already found that in the nature of the allegations made against the petitioner and in the light of the materials available in the case diary, this is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail to petitioner. I do not find any reason to come to a different finding. The incident happened as early as in May, 2008 and petitioner could not be arrested so far. Petitioner is required for interrogation for the purpose of investigation.
Therefore, petitioner is directed to surrender before the Magistrate Court concerned or the Investigating Officer within seven days from today and co-operate with the investigation.
With this direction, this petition is dismissed.
K.HEMA, JUDGE.
mn.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
