IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH JANUARY 2008 / 26TH POUSHA 1929 Bail Appl..No. 218 of 2008() ---------------------------- CRMP.180/2007 of J.M.F.C.,MAVELIKKARA CRIME NO.60/07 OF MAVELIKKARA POLICE STATION .................... : PETITIONER/ACCUSED ----------------------------------- SUNIL KUMAR, S/O.SUKUMARAN, SUNIL BHAVANAM, KADAMPANADU, ADOOR TALUK. BY ADV. SRI. K.SHAJ SRI.B.BALRAJ SRI.SAJJU.S RESPONDENTS: ------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.S.U.NAZAR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J ------------------------------------ B.A.No. 218 of 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 16th day of January, 2008 ORDER Application for regular bail. Petitioner in this crime faces allegations under Section 379 I.P.C. He has been continuing in custody from 17.10.07. His arrest in this crime has been recorded on 18.12.07. 2. On 17.10.07, the petitioner was allegedly intercepted when he tried to transport spirit in the vehicle in question. He was arrested in that crime on 17.10.07. He continues in custody from that date. Investigations reveal that the vehicle in which transportation of spirit took place is a stolen vehicle. In respect of theft of that vehicle, another crime has been registered. The petitioner was shown as the accused in that crime and remains in custody in such crime from 18.12.07. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent. He is not responsible for the commission of the crime of theft of the car. He had received the car from some other person for consideration. In these circumstances, he cannot, at any rate, mulcted with the liability for theft of the vehicle. B.A.No. 218 of 2008 2 4. The learned Public Prosecutor opposes the application. The learned Public Prosecutor submits that the petitioner is found to be in possession of a car which was earlier thieved. Presumptions of prudence under Section 114 of the Evidence Act can justifiably be raised against the petitioner that he is either the one who committed the theft or is one who received the stolen property knowing the same to be stolen. In either event, the offence is non bailable and the petitioner cannot be released. The learned Public Prosecutor submits that the petitioner's arrest in this crime took place only on 18.12.07. The Investigating Officer has not received sufficient time after the arrest of the petitioner to complete the investigation. In these circumstances, the petitioner may not be granted regular bail in this crime now, submits the learned Public Prosecutor . 5. Having considered all the relevant inputs, I find merit in the opposition by the learned Public Prosecutor. The stolen vehicle was recovered from the possession of the petitioner who claims to have purchased the same from another person who is arrayed as the 1st accused, the petitioner being the 2nd accused. The 1st accused has not been traced so far. The Investigating Officer may be granted further time to trace the 1st accused and B.A.No. 218 of 2008 3 complete the investigation in the crime, submits the learned Public Prosecutor. 6. Having considered all the relevant inputs, I find merit in the opposition by the learned Public Prosecutor. It is true that the petitioner has remained in custody from 17.10.07. But I cannot lose sight of the fact that the petitioner was arrested only on 18.12.07 and he is the one who is found to be in possession of the stolen car though the petitioner has claimed that the same has been purchased from one Vijayan. The said Vijayan has not been traced so far. I am satisfied that the petitioner is not entitled for regular bail at this stage. 7. This application for regular bail is, in these circumstances, dismissed, but with the observation that the petitioner shall be at liberty to move this Court for bail again at a later stage of the investigation - not, at any rate, prior to 30.01.08. The investigators must in the meantime make every endeavour to complete the investigation. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) rtr/-