IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN TUESDAY, THE 20TH OCTOBER 2009 / 28TH ASWINA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 5997 of 2009 CRIME NO.1187 OF 2009 OF THE CENTRAL POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM. PETITIONER: 4TH ACCUSED: -------------------- ANAS, S/O. ABDUL SALAM, AJEENA MANZIL, MUTHANA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.S.M.PREM SMT.K.P.SANTHI SRI.P.K.NIJOY SMT.NISHA G.THARAMAL RESPONDENT: --------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PSOECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.TEKCHAND THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------ B.A. NO. 5997 OF 2009 ------------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 20th day of October, 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 fourth accused in Crime No.1187 of 2009 of the Central Police Station, Ernakulam District. 2. The offence alleged against the petitioner is under Section 380 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The gist of the prosecution case is the following: On 24.5.2009, a customer of Kalyan Silks parked his vehicle in the parking area of Kalyan Silks. The key was handed over to the person in charge at Kalyan Silks. The allegation is that after the customer went inside the shop, the first accused, who is an employee in Kalyan Silks, made available another token in respect of the car and handed over the same to accused Nos.2 to 5. Accused Nos.2 to 5 produced the token in the counter and got the key of the vehicle. They drove away the car. It is also alleged that accused B.A. NO. 5997 OF 2009 :: 2 :: Nos.2 to 5 came to Ernakulam in a car belonging to a rent a car concern. The stereo recorder available in the car which was taken from Kalyan Silks was removed and sold by accused Nos.2 to 5 and they paid the amount to the rent a car concern. 4. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature and gravity of the offence and the allegations levelled against the accused persons, I do not think that the petitioner is entitled to the discretionary relief under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. If anticipatory bail is granted to the petitioner, it would adversely affect the proper investigation of the case. The Bail Application is accordingly dismissed. (K.T.SANKARAN) Judge ahz/