IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN FRIDAY, THE 10TH JULY 2009 / 19TH ASHADHA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 3633 of 2009() ------------------------------------- CRIME NO.83/2009 OF CHOMBAL POLICE STATION. PETITIONER/ACCUSED: -------------------------------------- SAJEER, S/O.USMAN, KIZHAKKYIL, AZHIYOOR, VATAKARA, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.C.R.SIVAKUMAR RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT: --------------------------------------------- THE STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CHOMBAL POLICE STATION, KOZHIKODE DISTIRCT, THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. SRI. TEKCHAND, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T. SANKARAN, J. --------------------------- B.A. No. 3633 of 2009 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 10th day of July, 2009 O R D E R This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner is the accused in Crime No.83/2009 of Chombal Police Station. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 354 and 394 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. I have perused the case diary. The petitioner was working as a driver of the defacto complainant. The defacto complainant was having a Innovo car. It is stated that the petitioner is the neighbour of the defacto complainant. He was having free access in the house of the defacto complainant. Her husband used to go out in the evening and he used to come back at 8.30P.M.. On the date of incident i.e. on 5/07/2008, the defacto complainant was watching Television. She was alone in the house. At that time, it is stated that the petitioner came to the down stairs. On seeing him, the defacto complainant asked him how he entered into the house. It is alleged that the petitioner threatened the defacto complainant to death and B.A. No. 3633/2009 Page numbers took the keys of the safe and took away the ornaments and cash of more than 6 lakhs. It is also alleged that on subsequent occasions also there was threat from the petitioner to the defacto complainant and he even threatened to circulate the nude photograph of the defacto complainant allegedly in the possession of the petitioner. The matter was reported to the husband of the defacto complainant only in the month of May, 2009. The matter was reported to the police and FIR was registered only on 26/05/2009. 4. The Case Diary discloses that the investigating officer was not fully satisfied about the truth or otherwise of the story stated by the defacto complainant. At the same time, the investigating officer was satisfied that the petitioner is guilty of some offence. According to prosecution, more than 12 sovereigns of gold ornaments were recovered from Muthoot Finance. According to prosecution, those ornaments belonging to the defacto complainant were pledged by the petitioner. The petitioner is absconding. Interrogation of the petitioner is necessary. The full facts are to be brought to light and the B.A. No. 3633/2009 Page numbers investigation is to be completed. 5. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature and gravity of the offence and the need for further investigation, I do not think that the petitioner is entitled to get anticipatory bail. The petitioner is not entitled to the discretionary relief under Section 438 of the code of Criminal Procedure. The Bail Application is accordingly, dismissed. K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE scm