IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA MONDAY, THE 9TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 20TH MAGHA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 90 of 2009() ------------------------------------- CRMP.2708/2008 of DISTRICT COURT, KASARAGOD CRIME NO.380/2008 OF KASARAGOD POLICE STATION. .................... PETITIONER (S): ACCUSED NO.1 -------------------- C.B. MOAMMED KUNHI, AGED 48 YEARS, S/O. BAPPU MOIDEEN, MISSIRIYA MANZIL, POST, R.D. NAGAR, KASARGOD DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.SURESH KUMAR KODOTH RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT & STATE ------------------------ STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE STATION HOUSE OFFICE, HOSDURG POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR.JAI GEORGE THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. ----------------------------------------- B.A.No. 90 of 2009 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 9th February, 2009 O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Sections 126 and 135 of the Electricity Act. According to prosecution, accused 1 and 2 committed theft of electrical energy and this was detected by the Anti Power Theft Squad of the KSEB, who conducted inspection in the premises of a lodge on 26.6.2008. The lodge is owned by second accused and first accused is the person who is running the lodge. The tampering of the meter was done by both the accused for the purpose of committing theft of electrical energy. 3. Petitioner is the first accused in the crime. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that petitioner is absolutely innocent of the allegations made. He has no connection with the lodge. It is also submitted that the court cannot take cognizance of offence under the Electricity Act, except on a complaint made by the KSEB. BA.90/09 2 4. This petition is opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that there is no bar in conducting any investigation on the basis of the allegations made in the complaint. The bar is in taking cognizance except on a complaint by the appropriate authority. It is also submitted that allegations made in this complaint are serious in nature and it is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. As per the allegations in the complaint and materials in the case diary, petitioner is the person, who is running the lodge. 5. On hearing both sides, considering the serious nature of allegations made, I am of view that this is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. No special circumstance is made out to invoke provision under Section 438 Cr.P.C. In the nature of allegations made, petitioner may be required for interrogation to ascertain the facts which are within his exclusive knowledge relating to the manner in which the theft is committed. The contention that there is bar in taking cognizance etc., can be raised at the time of filing bail application under Section 437 Cr.P.C. The crime is registered as early as on 28.6.2008 and petitioner is required for investigation. Hence, the following order is passed: BA.90/09 3 (1) Petitioner shall surrender before the investigating officer forthwith and co- operate with the investigation. Whether he surrenders or not, police is at liberty to arrest him and proceed in accordance with law. (2) No further application for anticipatory bail by petitioner in this crime will be entertained by this Court. Petition is dismissed. K.HEMA, JUDGE vgs.