Shamina Beevi vs State Of Kerala
2022 Latest Caselaw 1779 Ker

              IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                               PRESENT
               THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.
    WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2022 / 27TH MAGHA, 1943
                    BAIL APPL. NO. 9843 OF 2021
         CRIME NO.3140/2021 OF Nedumangad Police Station,
                          Thiruvananthapuram
    AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CRMC 3002/2021 OF ADDITIONAL
   DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT - IV, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM / I
                           ADDITIONAL MACT
PETITIONER/6TH ACCUSED:

          SHAMINA BEEVI
          AGED 36 YEARS
          W/O. JAHANGIR, THADATHARIKATHU VEEDU, THOTTAMUKKU,
          PULIMOODU WARD, NOW RESIDING AT RENTAL HOUSE OWNED BY
          HASHIM, NEAR GOVERNMENT HIGH SCHOOL TOWN WARD,
          THILOKKODU VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT-695541.

          BY ADV P.ANOOP (MULAVANA)



RESPONDENT:

          STATE OF KERALA
          REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
          -682031.

          BY ADV ADDL.DIRECTOR GENERAL OF PROSECUTION


THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16.02.2022,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 B.A.No.9843/2021                           2

                                     ORDER

This is an application for anticipatory bail.

2. The petitioner is the 6th accused in Crime No.3140/2021 of

Nedumangad Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram District alleging commission

of offences under Sections 363, 394 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. Accused Nos.1 to 4 in the case are alleged to have stolen an amount

of Rs.5.60 lakhs from the de facto complainant, who is a Jewellery owner. The

allegation is that the de facto complainant was made to believe that one among

the accused Nos.1 to 4 had pledged some gold ornaments and on redemption of

the same, those gold ornaments can be sold to the de facto complainant. On

this premise, the de facto complaint had gone with accused Nos.1 to 4 in a car

along with Rs.5.60 lakhs in cash. While in the car, accused Nos.1 to 4

threatened the de facto complainant using a sword and robbed the amount of

Rs.5.60 lakhs from him, is the allegation. It is also alleged that the de facto

complainant was stabbed by one among accused Nos.1 to 4.

4. The petitioner (6th accused) is the wife of the 1 st accused. The 5th

accused in the case is the son of accused No.1 and accused No.6. The specific

allegation against accused Nos.5 and 6 is that the amount robbed from the de

facto complainant was handed over by the 1st accused to the 5th accused, who

had in turn handed over the same to the petitioner/6 th accused.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that

the petitioner is absolutely innocent in the matter. It is submitted that the

petitioner is having matrimonial disputes with the 1 st accused and they have

been living separately. It is submitted that the petitioner has three children

including two minor children and that there is no one else to take care of them.

It is submitted that the petitioner had no occasion to receive any money from

the 1st accused through the 5th accused. It is submitted that the petitioner is a 43

year old woman and her arrest and detention is not necessary considering the

allegations raised against them.

6. The learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel appearing

for the de facto complainant vehemently oppose the grant of bail. It is

submitted that the 1st accused in the case is a history-sheeter and is accused in

13 similar cases. It is submitted that the modus operandi was to handover the

stolen property to the petitioner/6 th accused. It is submitted that petitioner/6 th

accused faces a charge under Section 414 of the Indian Penal Code. It is

submitted that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is absolutely

necessary in the matter especially taking into account the fact that the cash

stolen from the de facto complainant has not been recovered so far. It is also

pointed out that the business of the de facto complainant had suffered badly on

account of the fact that such huge amount of cash had been stolen by the

accused in this case.

7. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and having

considered the allegations raised against the petitioner herein and taking into

account the fact that the petitioner is a 43 year old lady, who is stated to have

two minor children, I am of the view that the interest of the prosecution can be

served by granting a limited custody of the petitioner to the prosecution and

making it clear that such limited custody of the petitioner will be available with

the prosecution for the purposes of any recovery etc.

8. In the result, this application is allowed. It is directed that the

petitioner shall be released on anticipatory bail, in the event of arrest in Crime

No.3140/2021 of Nedumangad Police Station subject to the following

conditions:-

(i) Petitioner shall execute bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty

thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction

of the jurisdictional Court;

(ii) Petitioner shall appear before the investigating officer in

Crime No.3140/2021 of Nedumangad Police Station at 10 a.m. on 23.2.2022

and 24.2.2022 and thereafter whenever called upon to do so;

(iii) Petitioner shall not attempt to contact the de facto complainant or

interfere with the investigation or to influence or intimidate any witness in

Crime No.3140/2021 of Nedumangad Police Station;

(iv) Petitioner shall not involve in any other crime while on bail.

If any of the aforesaid conditions are violated, the Investigating officer in

Crime No.3140/2021 of Nedumangad Police Station may file an application

before the jurisdictional Court for cancellation of bail.

sd/-

GOPINATH P.

JUDGE acd