State of Kerala represented by the Station House Officer, Thenhipalam Police Station v. Prabha C. Sekhar

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V** **TUESDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF MAY 2019 / 24TH VAISAKHA, 1941** **Crl.MC.No. 2672 of 2018** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CRL.M.C.NO.101/2018 OF THE DISTRICT COURT& SESSIONS COURT, MANJERI** **CRIME NO. 395/2014 OF Thenhipalam Police Station, Malappuram** **PETITIONER:** **STATE OF KERALA REP. BY THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, THENHIPALAM POLICE STATION.** **BY SENIOR PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.SUMAN CHAKRAVARTHY** ## **RESPONDENTS/ACCUSED NO.1:** 1 **PRABHA C.SEKHAR, W/O. MANOJ, AGED 46/18, MANUSMRUTHY, NANMANDA, BALUSSERY, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, TEACHER, NNMHSS CHELEMBRA. PIN-673612.** **ADDL.R2 SMT.BINDHU R.P., AGED 49,** **HEADMISTRESS, NARAYANAN NAIR MEMMORIAL HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, CHELAMBRA, PULLIPARAMBU, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-673634.** **ADDITIONAL 2ND RESPONDENT IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 28.9.2018 IN CRL.M.A. NO.2/2018.** **BY ADV. SRI.S.MANU** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14.05.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** Crl.MC.2672 of 2018 -:2:- ## **ORDER** The 1[st] respondent herein is a teacher. Alleging that she was involved in Crime No. 395 of 2014 of the Thenhipalam Police Station, registered under Sections 454 and 381 r/w. Section 34 of the IPC, a report was submitted before the learned Magistrate in the month of January, 2018. She approached the learned Sessions Judge with a petition seeking anticipatory bail. The same was allowed by the court below on stringent conditions by order dated 5.3.2018. The instant petition is filed by the State with a prayer to quash the above order. 2. For appreciating the contentions advanced, the allegations in the FIR, which was registered in the year 2014, will have to be briefly looked into. In the complaint, which was lodged by the headmistress of N.N.M.H.S.S.School, Chelambra, wherein the 1[st] respondent herein was working as HSA Mathematics, it was alleged that on 10.6.2014, SSLC books belonging to certain students kept in the almirah were stolen by some one. A crime was registered and the investigation Crl.MC.2672 of 2018 -:3:- was taken over by the Sub Inspector of Police, Thenhipalam Police Station. Later, another officer of the same rank took over the investigation and this continued till 25.07.2015. The investigation was then handed over to the Circle Inspector of Police, Thirurangadi, who, in the course of investigation, concluded that it was the 1[st] respondent and another person, who with intent to commit theft, had taken away 21 SSLC books kept in the custody of the headmistress with a view to tarnish the reputation and goodwill of the informant as well as the school. 3. Heard Sri.Suman Chakravarthy, the learned Senior Public Prosecutor and Sri.Manu S., the learned counsel appearing for the 1[st] respondent. In the course of proceedings, the headmistress of the school got herself impleaded as additional 2[nd] respondent. I have heard Sri.S.Sreekumar, the learned Senior Counsel, who appeared for the intervenor. 4. It is submitted by the learned Senior Public Prosecutor that the Police have not been able to trace out the SSLC books till date. Unless the 1[st] respondent is interrogated in custody, the Crl.MC.2672 of 2018 -:4:- investigating officer will not be able to recover the stolen books. According to the learned Public Prosecutor, the learned Sessions Judge has failed to take into account relevant facts while granting anticipatory bail to the 1[st] respondent. The contention of the 1[st] respondent that the headmistress was having an axe to grind as against her was accepted as such by the learned Sessions Judge. It is further submitted that the details of the SSLC books which were stolen were published in the Veekshanam daily newspaper on 14.06.2014 and investigation revealed that the husband of the respondent was the person, who had disclosed these details to the media. This would show that the 1[st] respondent had a role to play in the commission of the offence. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the 1[st] respondent would submit that none of the grounds raised by the Public Prosecutor are cogent enough to interfere with the order of anticipatory bail granted by the Court of Session. It is submitted by the learned counsel that the management of the school as well as the headmistress have never been in good terms with the 1[st] respondent. As early as in the year 2009, in order to avoid division fall, the 1[st] Crl.MC.2672 of 2018 -:5:- respondent was ordered by the management to mark attendance of non-existing students. When the 1[st] respondent refused, she was victimized in no small measure. It is further submitted that her service book was eaten by termites while in custody of the headmistress and this prompted her to lodge a complaint before the educational authorities. Later, she submitted Annexure-R1(c) letter dated 10.07.2017 before the 2[nd] respondent seeking disbursement of her pay revision benefits. On receipt of the said letter, AnnexureR1(d) was issued by the Principal on 25.07.2017 justifying her stand. Immediately thereafter, the statement of a peon was recorded after several years and the 1[st] respondent was falsely implicated. According to the learned counsel, the prosecution has no case that the 1[st] respondent had interfered or had attempted to interfere with the due course of administration of justice or had abused the concession granted to her. Bail granted to the 1[st] respondent, who is a lady as well as teacher, cannot be and should not be cancelled on the strength of the contentions advanced, is the submission. 6. Sri.S.Sreekumar, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the 2[nd] respondent, supported the submissions of the learned Crl.MC.2672 of 2018 -:6:- Senior Public Prosecutor. The learned Senior Counsel would submit that the order granting anticipatory bail to the 1[st] respondent is illegal as the learned Sessions Judge had allowed the application without comprehending the nature of the allegations and the role attributed to the 1[st] respondent. 7. I have considered the submissions advanced and have gone through the materials which are made available. 8. The records would show that the crime was registered based on the information furnished by the headmistress on 9.6.2014. Investigation was conducted by several officers and it was only on 29.01.2018 that a report was filed before the learned Magistrate, Parappanangadi that the 1[st] respondent herein was involved in the offence. Such a conclusion was arrived at based on the statement given by one Jayesh, a peon of the school, who stated before the police after several years that on 9.6.2014, the 1[st] respondent had come to the office room while he was dealing with the SSLC books. He was asked to hand over the admission register and for a brief period, the 1[st] respondent was in the room where the SSLC books Crl.MC.2672 of 2018 -:7:- were kept. The other material which is relied on by the prosecution is the statement of the husband of the 1[st] respondent that it was his wife who had told him that the SSLC books were missing. The records reveal that the 1[st] respondent had filed B.A. Nos.1828 of 2017 and 4993 of 2017 before this Court seeking pre-arrest bail and those applications were closed recording the submission of the learned Public Prosecutor that she has not been arrayed as an accused in the crime. Even in Annexure-R1(d) issued by the headmistress to the 1[st] respondent, in response to Annexure-R1(c) issued by her, the 2[nd] respondent has no case that the 1[st] respondent had any role in the incident relating to the missing SSLC books. In view of the above, the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the 1[st] respondent that the service of Jayesh was obtained by the management after Annexure-R1(d) to harass and intimidate the 1[st] respondent cannot be brushed aside. It also appears from the case records that the Under Secretary, General Education had chastised the headmistress for not maintaining the service records of the teachers in a safe and sound condition. 9. On a perusal of the order passed by the learned Sessions Crl.MC.2672 of 2018 -:8:- Judge, which is impugned in this petition, I am of the view that the judicial discretion was correctly exercised by the court below. It was on relevant considerations that the 1[st] respondent was granted an order of pre-arrest bail by the court below. The 1[st] respondent has been co-operating with the investigation from the registration of the crime in the year 2014. The prosecution has no case that the 1[st] respondent herein had attempted to interfere with the investigation or thwart the course of justice. ## 10. In **Dataram Singh** v. **State of Uttar Pradesh** [2018 (2) SCALE 285], the Hon’ble Supreme Court had occasion to observe that there is difference between yardsticks for cancellation of bail and appeal against the order granting bail. Very cogent and overwhelming circumstances are necessary for an order directing the cancellation of bail already granted. It was held that the grounds for cancellation of bail are interference or attempt to interfere with the due course of administration of justice, evasion or attempt to evade the due course of justice or abuse of the concessions granted to the accused in any manner. The satisfaction of the Court on the basis of the materials placed on record of the possibility of the Crl.MC.2672 of 2018 -:9:- accused absconding is another reason justifying the cancellation of bail. The courts were cautioned to bear in mind that bail once granted should not be cancelled in a mechanical manner without considering whether any supervening circumstances have rendered it no longer conducive to a fair trial to allow the accused to retain her freedom by enjoying the concession of bail during the trial. The 1[st] respondent, being a lady and also a teacher, was rightly extended the benefit of pre-arrest bail by the court below. This petition will stand dismissed. SD/- **RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V., JUDGE** krj //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Crl.MC.2672 of 2018 -:10:- ## **APPENDIX** ## PETITIONER’S EXHIBITS:- ANNNEXURE-A:- COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 5.3.2018 IN CRL.MC.101/2018 OF THE SESSIONS COURT, MANJERI. ## RESPONDENTS’ EXHIBITS:- ANNEXURE-1: TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 16.05.2014 SUBMITTED BY HEADMISTRESS BEFORE THE DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER, THIRURANGADI. ANNEXURE-2:TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 23.06.2014 SUBMITTED BY THE HEADMISTRESS BEFORE THE DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER, THIRURANGADI. ANNEXURE-3: TRUE COPY OF REPLY DATED 30.06.2014 ISSUED BY THE DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER, THIRURANGADI TO THE HEADMISTRESS. ANNEXURE-4:TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 24.07.2014 SUBMITTED BY THE HEADMISTRESS TO SECRETARY, GENERAL EDUCATION. ANNEXURE-5:- TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 17.12.2014 PASSED BY THE GOVERNMENT. ANNEXURE R1(A):- TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION SUBMITTED BY THE HEAD MISTRESS OF THE SCHOOL TO THE THENHIPALAM POLICE STATION DATED 13.6.2014. ANNEXURE R1(B):- TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 5.9.2018 ISSUED BY THE DPI. ANNEXURE-R1(C):- TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 10.7.2017 SUBMITTED TO THE HEADMISTRESS. ANNEXURE-R1(D):- TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 25.7.2017 ISSUED BY THE HEAD MISTRESS. ANNEXURE-R1(E):- TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 20.7.2017 IN BA NO.4993 OF 2017.