IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA MONDAY, THE 17TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 26TH KARTHIKA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 6459 of 2008() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.335/2008 OF KATTAKADA POLICE STATION .................... PETITIONER:- --------------------- M.P. SHINE LAL,S/O MANOHARAN, SHINE NIVAS, PULIYOORKONAM, KATTAIKKODE P.O., KATTAKADA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.P.R.VENKETESH SRI.P.R.RAJA RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KATTAKADA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KATTAKKADA POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.K.S.SIVAKUMAR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. --------------------------------------------- B.A.No.6459 of 2008 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 17th November, 2008 O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. According to prosecution, petitioner is suspected to have committed theft of 3½ sovereigns of gold ornaments and Rs.43,000/- from the house of defacto complainant on 6.9.2008, when the inmates of the house were away. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that defacto complainant is none other than petitioner's father's brother. He is at logger head with petitioner's father and they are not even on speaking terms. Petitioner is a law student and he is also a leader of students union. The defacto complainant has deliberately, falsely implicated petitioner in a crime without any basis, learned counsel for petitioner submitted. Though 3½ sovereigns of gold ornaments were allegedly stolen, defacto complainant himself told the police later, on the very next day that those articles were found beneath his coat. Defacto complainant is attempting to spoil the image of petitioner and his family and if petitioner is refused anticipatory bail, it will adversely affect his future carrier and even the studies, it is submitted. BA No.6459 /2008 2 4. Learned public prosecutor submitted that petitioner was interrogated during pendency of this petition, as per the direction of this Court. Finger prints were also collected since the window was found removed for entering into the house. Till the report of finger print expert is received, it may not be possible to presume guilt of petitioner though it is suspected that petitioner committed the offence, it is submitted. 5. On hearing both sides, it appears that petitioner is not made an accused so far. Learned public prosecutor submitted that till the report of finger print expert is received, petitioner will not be made an accused and therefore, police has no intention to arrest petitioner until the report is received. This submission is recorded. In such circumstances, there is no basis for apprehension of arrest at this stage of investigation. No ground exists to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner at this stage. However, the respondent is directed to issue notice to the petitioner if he is required for interrogation after receipt of the finger print report. In the light of the undertaking, with this direction, this petition is disposed of. K.HEMA, JUDGE csl