Raja Vijayaraghavan V. ORDER
Raja Vijayaraghavan V., J.
1. The 1st 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 1st 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 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 1st 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 1st respondent. In the course of proceedings, the headmistress of the school got herself impleaded as additional 2nd 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 1st respondent is interrogated in custody, the 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 1st respondent. The contention of the 1st 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 1st respondent had a role to play in the commission of the offence.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the 1st 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 1st respondent. As early as in the year 2009, in order to avoid division fall, the 1st respondent was ordered by the management to mark attendance of non-existing students. When the 1st 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 Annex........