Sathyesh vs State Of Kerala

Shircy V., J

Petitioner is the sole accused in Crime No. 1644 of 2021 of Ettumanoor Police Station, registered for the offence punishable under Section 381 of

the Indian Penal Code. Apprehending arrest in connection with the said crime, this application is filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure.

The prosecution allegation is as follows:

The Administrative Officer of Ettumanoor Mahadeva Temple has lodged a complaint before the police alleging that a gold chain weighing 23 grms of

gold with 81 rudrakshas of the temple which was handed over to the Melsanthi of the temple along with other items for performing daily poojas was

found missing. The petitioner was the Melsanthi of the temple from 07.03.2018 till 05.07.2021. When he handed over charge to the newly appointed

Melsanthi, the gold chain was found missing. Instead of the same, another gold chain with 71 rudrakshas was handed over by the petitioner to the

newly appointed Melsanthi. In fact the original chain was 16 years old. But the new chain was only 2 ½ years old. Thus, on his complaint, the crime

was registered.

Heard both sides.

The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that he had entrusted all the belongings which were handed over to him at the time when

charge was taken by him as Melsanthi on 07.03.2018. So, all the items which were in his possession were handed over to the next person on

05.07.2021 when he was relieved. Moreover, the gold chain was under the custody of the Administrative Officer and was kept in a locker. This

petitioner had absolutely no access to the locker and so he cannot be blamed for the missing of the said item.

On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor contended that this particular gold chain was handed over to the petitioner as it was in daily use to

adorn the deity and on examination it was found that the original was missing and it was replaced by a new one which is 2 ½ years old. Moreover,

the entire rudrakshas are not seen in the chain. The further case of the prosecution is that 54 items were handed over to the petitioner when he had

taken charge and all those items were returned, but the original chain was not returned by the petitioner and hence the complaint was lodged.

The petitioner joined as Melsanthi of Ettumanoor Mahadeva temple on 07.03.2018 for a period of three years. He worked there in the temple in the

capacity as Melsanthi till 05.07.2021. The prosecution case is that the missing gold chain along with the other belongings and articles to perform daily

poojas and other rituals were handed over to the petitioner, but when he was relieved from his duty, they were not handed over to his successor who

was appointed as the Melsanthi in the year 2021. A perusal of the CD file would reveal that the missing gold chain consists of 81 rudrakshas with a

small covering of gold. The prosecution case is that the total weight of the gold in the missing chain was 23 grms. Moreover, the gold chain is 16 years

old and it was devoted by a devotee about 16 years back to the temple. So that gold chain was found missing when charge was handed over to the

new Melsanthi, is the prosecution case. From the CD file it is prima facie revealed that about 51 items were handed over to the Melsanthi and those

items were returned at the time when he handed over the charge. But from the records it is not revealed that this petitioner, when took charge as the

Malsanthi, had counted the rudrakshas in the chain and it was confirmed by the authorities that the chain was having 81 rudrakshas with gold covering

of 23 grms of gold and the same was not handed over by the petitioner to his successor. The case is that the missing chain was 16 years old and the

new one found in the place of the old one was only 2 ½ years old and it was having only 71 rudrakshas.

A detailed enquiry is required in the case so as to verify whether the missing chain which was handed over to the petitioner was not returned by

him and at the time of taking charge as Melsanthi whether he had counted the total number of rudrakshas and confirmed before the authorities that it

was having 81 rudrakshas. So in short it is not revealed that the chain of 81 rudrakshas was handed over to him when he took charge as Melsanthi to

perform poojas. So also, the records are not sufficient to conclude that what all items were actually entrusted to the Melsanthi with the weight and the

other description so as to verify whether the same articles were returned by the Melsanthi when charge was handed over to his successor. So, the

complicity of this petitioner in committing theft of the gold chain is prima facie not revealed from the records. The prosecution is supposed to go deep

into the allegations raised against him so as to find out whether the original gold chain has been lost in theft and whether this petitioner is the person

responsible for the same. Now the investigation of the case is only in the preliminary stage. So, detailed probe is required/needed in the matter. For

that, the presence of the petitioner is essential. But, I could not find any materials so as to infer that custodial interrogation of this petitioner is

absolutely necessary to verify the same.

Therefore, this application is disposed of directing the petitioner to surrender before the Investigating Officer on 27.01.2022 at 10.30 a.m. Upon his

surrender, after interrogation and recording arrest, he shall be released on bail subject to the following conditions:

(i) The petitioner shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.100,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) with two solvent sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the

Investigating Officer. One surety shall be a close relative of the petitioner.

(ii) The petitioner shall appear for interrogation before the Investigating Officer as and when required by him in writing. He shall co-operate with the investigation of

the case.

(iii) The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him

from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

(iv) The petitioner shall not commit any offence while on bail.

In case of violation of any of the above conditions, the learned Magistrate is empowered to cancel the bail in accordance with the law.