IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA WEDNESDAY, THE 14TH JANUARY 2009 / 24TH POUSHA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 7949 of 2008 ------------------------------------- (CRIME NO. 789/2008 OF VADANAPILLY POLICE STATION) ............ PETITIONERS/ ACCUSED: ------------------------------------- 1. JOHN M.A, S/O.ANTONY M.A, MANGATT HOUSE, VADUTHALA, KOCHI. 2. ROMY IMMANUEL, VLIYATHIKKAL (H), BISHOP GARDEN, PATTALAM, FORT KOCHI. 3. K.V.MANOJ, S/O.VIDHYADHARAN K.C, KURUPPASSERY (H) PALAPARAMBIL, KADEBHAGAM, PALLURUTHY. 4. SHOIN MATHEW KANISSERY PARAMBIL, MALIAKKAL ROAD, THEVARA, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SMT.M.S.KIRAN. RESPONDENTS/ COMPLAINANT/ STATE: ---------------------------------------------------------- 1. SUB INSPECTOR, VADANAPPALLY POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. R1 & R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. K.S. SIVA KUMAR. THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/01/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: prv. K. HEMA, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= B.A. No. 7949 of 2008 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this the 14th day of January,2009 O R D E R Petition for anticipatory bail. 2. According to prosecution, 1st accused, who is a Collection Manager, and de facto complainant had entered into hire purchase agreement for purchase of a tipper lorry with the bank. Since de facto complainant defaulted repayment, the tipper lorry was taken possession of by accused 2 to 7, under instruction from 1st accused. They came in motor cycles and committed the offences. 3. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that there was no default in repayment of the hire purchase amount and hence, bank is not entitled to repossession of the vehicle. Therefore, no offence is made out, it is submitted. Learned counsel for petitioners also submitted that 1st accused was granted bail by learned Sessions Judge and hence, petitioners may be granted anticipatory bail. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor opposed this petition. The learned counsel appearing for de facto complainant was also heard. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the offences BA 7949/08 -2- were committed by accused 2 to 7 at the instance of 1st accused. It is also submitted that petitioners (A3 to A5 and A7) have actually committed the offences by coming in three motor cycles. 5. Learned counsel for de facto complainant submitted that de facto complainant had actually paid the amounts and no amount is due, but lorry was taken into custody by accused 2 to 7 at the instance of 1st accused and it was kept in their custody for a period of 20 days. This is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail, it is submitted. It is also submitted that petitioners had moved the Sessions Court, Thrissur originally for anticipatory bail and when petition was about to be dismissed, it was withdrawn and a petition was moved before the Sessions Court, Ernakulam and the petition was dismissed. It was suppressing the fact that they filed a petition before the learned Sessions Judge, Thrissur, that the petition was filed before the Sessions Court, Ernakulam. 6. On hearing both sides, I am satisfied that considering the nature of allegations made, this is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. No special circumstance is pointed out by learned counsel for petitioners this Court to invoke provision under section 438 Cr.P.C. The incident occurred as early as on BA 7949/08 -3- 16-10-2008 and petitioners have not surrendered before the court or before the police. Therefore, the investigation is in a stand still. Hence, petitioners are directed to surrender before the Investigating Officer without any delay and co-operate with the investigation. Whether they surrender or not, police is at liberty to arrest them and proceed in accordance with law. With this direction, this petition is dismissed. K.HEMA, JUDGE. mn.