IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN MONDAY, THE 3RD OCTOBER 2011 / 11TH ASWINA 1933 Bail Appl..No. 7390 of 2011() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.671/2011 OF CHENGANNUR POLICE STATION .................... PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.4 ----------------------------------- SIVASANKARA PILLAI, AGED 55 YEARS, S/O. VASUDEVAN PILLAI, PRASANTH BHAVANAM, MALAYALAPPUZHA.P.O., THUZHAM, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.RINNY STEPHEN CHAMAPARAMPIL SMT.ASHA ELIZABETH MATHEW RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT -------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682031. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.V.MANU THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/10/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. --------------------------- B.A.No.7390 of 2011 --------------------------- Dated this the 3rd day of October, 2011 O R D E R This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner is accused No.4 in Crime No.671 of 2011 of Chengannur Police Station. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 406, 420, 411, 468 and 471 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The prosecution case is the following : The de facto complainant owned a Qualis car. The vehicle was given to accused No.2 as security for a loan of ` 40,000/-. Accused Nos.2 and 3 took the vehicle to accused No.1. At the instance of accused No.1, accused No.4 created false registration number and registration certificate and other documents to show that the vehicle was registered at Dharmapuri. Later, the vehicle was transferred to accused No.5 at Pathanamthitta and BA 7390/11 2 a registration number was obtained. Thereafter, the vehicle was transferred in the name of accused No.1. 4. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the petitioner is involved in several other cases of similar nature registered at different police stations in Kerala and Tamil Nadu. 5. The offences alleged against the petitioner are very grave in nature. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not think that the petitioner is entitled to get the discretionary relief under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The matter requires investigation. Custodial interrogation of the petitioner may be required in the case. If anticipatory bail is granted to the petitioner, it would adversely affect the proper and smooth investigation of the case. For the aforesaid reasons, the Bail application is dismissed. K.T.SANKARAN JUDGE csl