IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT MONDAY, THE 25TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 6TH PHALGUNA 1929 Bail Appl..No. 1120 of 2008() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.45/08 OF THE KALPAKANCHERI POLICE STATION .................... PETITIONER/ACCUSED ----------------------------------- SREEROOP, S/O. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, THANEERKANDIYIL HOUSE, KUNNAMANGALAM AMSOM, PILASSERI. BY ADV. SRI.P.S.SREEDHARAN PILLAI SMT.C.G.PREETHA RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT/STATE ------------------------------ STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY P.P. SRI. GIKKU JACOB. THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. ------------------------------------------------- B.A. No. 1120 of 2008 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 25th day of February, 2008 ORDER Application for regular bail. The petitioner is the 1st accused in a crime registered alleging offences punishable under Secs.457 and 380 read with Sec.511 of the IPC. The alleged incident took place on 30/1/08 at about 3.30 a.m. The petitioner, along with the co-accused, allegedly came in a Maruthi car and were attempting to commit theft in a grossery shop by breaking open the lock of the shutter. While they were engaged in such attempt, the informant, who was driving a lorry along that way, noticed the incident and reported the fact to the police. The petitioner was arrested on 31/1/08. He continues in custody from that date. The 2nd accused has also been arrested. Two other persons have also been named and brought on the array of accused. They have not been arrested B.A. No. 1120 of 2008 -: 2 :- so far. The petitioner continues in custody from 31/1/08. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is absolutely innocent. He was not arrested at the scene of the crime. He was arrested long later on 31/1/08 at Calicut. He is in no way connected with the crime. The petitioner may, in these circumstances, be granted bail, it is prayed. 3. The learned Public Prosecutor opposes the application. The learned Public Prosecutor submits that though the miscreants were not identified by names by the lorry driver who detected the offence, the car number was clearly shown on the very next day. The petitioner was seen in that car. He had no satisfactory explanation to offer. In these circumstances, the petitioner may not be enlarged on bail at this early stage. The Investigator may be given some further time to complete the investigation and apprehend the co-accused also, it is prayed. 4. Having considered all the relevant inputs, I find merit in the opposition by the learned Public Prosecutor. I am not persuaded to agree that the discretion under Sec.439 of the Cr.P.C. deserves to be invoked in favour of the petitioner at this stage. 5. In the result, this bail application is dismissed. But I B.A. No. 1120 of 2008 -: 3 :- may hasten to observe that the petitioner shall be at liberty to move this Court for bail again at a later stage of the investigation – not, at any rate, prior to 10/3/08. The Investigator shall, in the meantime, make every endeavour to complete the investigation. Sd/- (R. BASANT, JUDGE) Nan/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge