IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN TUESDAY, THE 19TH JANUARY 2010 / 29TH POUSHA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 7174 of 2009 CRIME NO.640 OF 2009 OF POOYAPPALLY POLICE STATION, KOLLAM PETITIONER/ACCUSED -------------------------------------- DENNY S., ATHIRA, KARINGANNOOR P.O., KOTTARAKKARA, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.B.MOHANLAL SMT.P.S.PREETHA RESPONDENT: COMPLAINANT -------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, POOYAPPALLY POLICE STATION KOLLAM DISTRICT, THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.M.S.BREEZ THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------ B.A. NO. 7174 OF 2009 ------------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 19th day of January, 2010 O R D E R The petitioner apprehends arrest on an accusation of having committed a non-bailable offence in Crime No.640 of 2009 of Pooyappally Police Station, Kollam District and, therefore, he has filed this application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that in Crime No.640 of 2009, registered for the offences under Sections 450 and 436 read with Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, as of now, the petitioner is not an accused. Therefore, there is no intention to arrest the petitioner at this stage. The learned Public Prosecutor also submitted that the petitioner is a close friend of one Vinod, who is the third accused in the case. It is also submitted that the third accused had openly declared that he would set fire to the scooter of the de facto complainant. The incident occurred on 19.11.2009. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that on 18.11.2009, Vinod had made an open declaration that he was going to Erode. On B.A. NO. 7174 OF 2009 :: 2 :: investigation, it was found that Vinod had not gone to Erode. It is further submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that the petitioner had also made a declaration that he was going to Ernakulam, but, in fact, he did not go to Ernakulam. It is submitted that at present the petitioner is not made an accused in the crime. 3. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the Bail Application is premature. Since there is no intention to arrest the petitioner, the petitioner cannot have any apprehension that he would be arrested and detained. Recording the submission made by the learned Public Prosecutor, the Bail Application is closed with liberty to the petitioner to approach this Court again as and when occasion arises. (K.T.SANKARAN) Judge ahz/