IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA THURSDAY, THE 23RD OCTOBER 2008 / 1ST KARTHIKA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 5577 of 2008() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.86/08 OF KODENCHERRY POLICE STATION PETITIONERS/ 2ND AND 3RD ACCUSED ---------------------------------------------------- 1. CHANDRA BOSE, S/O.NANU, PALLIMURIYIL VEEDU, ATHIRAKUNNU.P.O, SULTHAN BATHERY. 2. KANAKAN, RESIDING -DO- BY ADV. SRI.CIBI THOMAS RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT & STATE ---------------------------------- 1. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KODENCHERY POLICE STATION. 2. STATE REP;BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI.K.S.SIVAKUMAR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. ----------------------------------------- B.A.No.5577 of 2008 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 23rd October, 2008 O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Sections 457 and 380 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code. According to prosecution, petitioners (accused 2 and 3), in furtherance of common intention assembled together and stole rubber sheets from St.Mary's Church and those were sold to a shop. The jeep of second accused was also used for transportation of the stolen article. 3. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that the first accused is the petitioners' driver and he was dismissed from service. He has given false confession statement against the petitioners implicating them with the offence. They are innocent of the allegations made. Third accused is having mental illness as evidenced by Annexures-I to III and they have not committed any offence. It is also submitted that recovery of the stolen article is effected. Therefore, anticipatory bail may be granted. 4. This petition is opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the petitioners have a clear role in the theft. The stolen articles were recovered from a shop as per a statement given by first accused and the shopkeeper has given evidence that the BA.5577/08 2 petitioners were also present at the time of sale of the article. It is also in evidence that the articles were brought in a jeep owned by the second petitioner. The petitioners are required for interrogation and identification by the witness, it is submitted. Learned Public Prosecutor also pointed out that the petitioners are involved in two other crimes also. In an offence of this nature, it is not proper to grant anticipatory bail. 5. On hearing both sides, I am satisfied that on consideration of the nature of the allegations made, it is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. Petitioners are required for interrogation and identification. If anticipatory bail is granted, it is likely to adversely affect the investigation. The incident happened as early as on 12.6.2007 and the petitioners were not available for arrest for the past more than one year. Petitioners are directed to surrender before the investigating officer within seven days from today and co-operate with the investigation. With this direction, petition is allowed. K.HEMA, JUDGE vgs.