IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA FRIDAY, THE 6TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 17TH MAGHA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 40 of 2009() --------------------------- CMP.2561/2008 of DISTRICT COURT, KALPETTA CMP.2561/08 IN CRIME NO.323/07 OF MEENANGADI POLICE STATION PETITIONER (S): ACCUSED 5 AND 6 ----------------------------------- 1. C.V. SAJAN, S/O.C.D. PADMANABHAN, AGED 35 YEARS, CHATTA HOUSE, PALIKKUNNU.P.O, KANNUR-4. 2. JAYAPRAKASH.K, S/O. NARAYANAN, AGED 47 YEARS, KARAYI HOUSE, NEAR HARISCHANDRA WEAVING MILLS, CIVIL STATION.P.O, KANNUR-2. BY ADV. SRI.SAJEEV KUMAR K.GOPAL RESPONDENT(S): STATE AND COMPLAINANT ------------------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, MEENANGADI POLICE STATION, WYNAD. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI.M.S.BREEZE THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. ----------------------------------------- B.A.No. 40 of 2009 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 6th February, 2009 O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Sections 379 and 411 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code. According to prosecution, accused 1 to 3 committed theft of a jeep on 12.12.2007 and it was sold to fourth accused, who purchased the same knowing the vehicle to be a stolen one. Fourth accused, with the help of accused 5 and 6, sold the same to 7th accused. All the accused have knowingly committed the offence in furtherance of common intention. 3. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that petitioners have no connection with the crime. They have only gone to see the vehicle, but they have not participated in the offence. They were questioned by the investigating officer and on being satisfied that they have nothing to do with the offence, they were released. Now, after considerable time, petitioners apprehend arrest and police implicated petitioners BA.40/09 2 on the basis of an alleged confession made by 7th accused. Such confession is not legally admissible and it cannot be treated as evidence. Therefore, petitioners may be granted anticipatory bail, it is submitted. 4. This petition is opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that as per the case diary, petitioners have specific role in the offence and it is not solely on the basis of the confession statement of 7th accused that they are implicated. There are materials to connect the petitioners with the crime. Considering the stage of investigation, it is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail, it is submitted. 5. On hearing both sides, considering the serious nature of offence committed and the allegations made against petitioners, I do not find that it is a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. Petitioners are required for interrogation and investigation. The crime is registered as early as on 13.12.2007 and the investigation has not gained considerable progress. Hence, the following order is passed: BA.40/09 3 (1) Petitioners shall surrender before the investigating officer and co-operate with the investigation. Whether they surrender or not, police is at liberty to arrest them and proceed in accordance with law. (2) No further application for anticipatory bail by petitioners in this crime will be entertained by this Court. Petition is dismissed. K.HEMA, JUDGE vgs.