Kerala High Court
Josina V.A vs State Of Kerala on 31 July, 2025
Author: Bechu Kurian Thomas
Bench: Bechu Kurian Thomas
2025:KER:57018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS
THURSDAY, THE 31ST DAY OF JULY 2025 / 9TH SRAVANA, 1947
BAIL APPL. NO. 8667 OF 2025
CRIME NO.913/2025 OF PALA POLICE STATION, KOTTAYAM
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 10.07.2025 IN BAIL APPL.
NO.8124 OF 2025 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA.
PETITIONER:
JOSINA V.A.,
AGED 35 YEARS,
W/O. MANEESH A M., RESIDING AT AYYAPPANTHATTEL
HOUSE, ADIMALI POST, IDUKKI DISTRICT,
PIN - 685 561.
BY ADVS.
SRI.T.MADHU
SMT.C.R.SARADAMANI
SHRI.RENJISH S. MENON
SMT.ALEENA JOSE
SMT.AVANTHIKA R.
SHRI.KARTHIK KRISHNA M.
RESPONDENT:
STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682 031.
SMT. SREEJA V., PP
Bail Appl. No.8667 of 2025
2025:KER:57018
-2-
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
31.07.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
Bail Appl. No.8667 of 2025
2025:KER:57018
-3-
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J.
--------------------------------------
Bail Appl. No.8667 of 2025
------------------------------------
Dated this the 31st day of July, 2025
ORDER
This bail application is filed under section 482 of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNSS').
2. Petitioner is the second accused in Crime No.913 of 2025
of Pala Police Station, Kottayam, registered for the offences punishable
under sections 331(4) and 605(a) r/w Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya
Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNS'). During the course of
investigation, the offence under Section 317(2) of BNS has also been
incorporated.
3. According to the prosecution, the first accused, who is the
husband of the petitioner, had trespassed into the house of the de
facto complainant and committed theft of a gold chain weighing 1.5
sovereigns worn by the de facto complainant and another gold chain
worn by the minor daughter of the de facto complainant and thereafter
handed over one of the gold chains to the second accused, who in turn
sold it to a jewellery and thereby the accused committed the offences
alleged.
4. I have heard Sri.T.Madhu., the learned counsel for the
2025:KER:57018
petitioner as well as Smt.Sreeja V., the learned Public Prosecutor.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that
petitioner has been falsely arrayed as an accused and that she has no
involvement in the alleged crime.
6. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application
and submitted that her custodial interrogation is necessary.
7. The first accused had committed theft of two gold chains
after trespassing into the house of the de facto complainant. One of
the gold chains was handed over to the petitioner, who is none other
than his wife. Immediately thereafter, petitioner allegedly sold the
said gold chain to a jewellery shop at Adimali. The said gold jewellery
has already been recovered pursuant to the arrest of the first accused.
The second gold chain however has not been recovered. The
prosecution has no case for the time being that petitioner had received
the second gold chain and what was handed over to the petitioner was
the gold chain that has already been recovered.
8. In Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2020 (5)
SCC 1, it was held that while considering whether to grant
anticipatory bail or not, Courts ought to be generally guided by
considerations such as the nature and gravity of the offences, the role
attributed to the applicant, and the facts of the case. Grant of
anticipatory bail is a matter of discretion and the kind of conditions to
2025:KER:57018
be imposed or not to be imposed are all dependent on facts of each
case, and subject to the discretion of the court.
9. In Ashok Kumar v. Union Territory of Chandigarh,
[2024 SCC OnLine SC 274], it has been held that a mere assertion on
the part of the State while opposing the plea for anticipatory bail that
custodial interrogation is required would not be sufficient and that the
State would have to show or indicate more than prima facie case as to
why custodial interrogation of the accused is required for the purpose
of investigation.
10. Though the allegations are serious and petitioner prima
facie has received a gold chain knowing it to be a stolen property,
considering the circumstance that the petitioner is a lady and the gold
chain handed over to her has already been recovered, I am of the view
that petitioner can be protected with an order of pre-arrest bail on
conditions.
Accordingly, this application is allowed on the following
conditions:
(a) Petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer on
08.08.2025 and shall subject herself to interrogation.
(b) If after interrogation, the Investigating Officer proposes
to arrest the petitioner, then, she shall be released on bail
on him executing a bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty
thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like
sum before the Investigating Officer.
(c) Petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer as
and when required and shall also co-operate with the
2025:KER:57018
investigation.
(d) Petitioner shall not intimidate or attempt to influence the
witnesses; nor shall she tamper with the evidence.
(e) Petitioner shall not commit any similar offences while she
is on bail.
(f) Petitioner shall not leave India without the permission of
the Court having jurisdiction.
In case of violation of any of the above conditions or if any
modification or deletion of the conditions are required, the
jurisdictional Court shall be empowered to consider such applications,
if any, and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law,
notwithstanding the bail having been granted by this Court.
Sd/-
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS
JUDGE
ADS
2025:KER:57018
APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 8667/2025
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure A1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED
20.06.2025 IN CRL.M.C.NO.913/2025 ON THE
FILES OF THE SESSION'S COURT KOTTAYAM.
Annexure A2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED
10.07.2025 IN B.A.NO.8124/2025 ON THE
FILES OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT.
