Serious allegations coupled with evidence of involvement in related crimes justify the denial of anticipatory bail.

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 gave it to the victim and when he 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 them to be stolen. She, thereafter, pledged the same in the bank and received money. The commission of the offence by her was revealed on the confession statement given by the 1st accused, when he was arrested in connection with another crime.

3. Petitioner had filed an application for anticipatory bail in this crime, but it was dismissed, as withdrawn. This is the second attempt for anticipatory bail. Petitioner is involved in another crime and she had also filed an application for anticipatory bail in the said crime (Crime no.348/2008 of Konny Police Station), which was dismissed by this Court. Learned BA 5766/2008 2 Public Prosecutor submitted that on the facts of this case, it is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. The materials in the case diary reveal involvement of petitioner in the crime and it is evident that petitioner received stolen articles knowing that to be stolen. The officials of the bank have given statement implicating petitioner with pledging of the stolen articles in the bank.

4. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that Petitioner and her husband are living separately from each other and they are not in good terms with each other. Petitioner's husband who is the 1st accused deliberately implicated petitioner with the crime but she has absolutely nothing to do with the crime. Petitioner is implicated only on the basis of statement given by the co-accused and hence she may be granted anticipatory bail, it is submitted.

5. On hearing both sides and on going through the case diary, I found that allegations made against petitioners are serious in nature. In the light of the allegations made, the interrogation of petitioner by the police will be required and hence it may not be proper to grant anticipatory bail, in an offence of this nature. It is also to be noted that petitioner is BA 5766/2008 3 involved in two crimes of similar nature. The incident occurred as early as in May, 2008 and petitioner could not be arrested so far. The investigation is in a stand still.

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.