IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA TUESDAY, THE 28TH OCTOBER 2008 / 6TH KARTHIKA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 6519 of 2008() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.679/08 OF VAIKKOM POLICE STATION PETITIONER ------------------------------ BIJU, AGED 35 YEARS, S/O.NARAYANAN, THEKKEDATHU HOUSE, THALAYOLAPARAMBU P.O VADAYAR. BY ADV. SRI.A.T.ANILKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VAIKKOM POLICE STATION, VAIKKOM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI.K.S.SIVAKUMAR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. ----------------------------------------- B.A.No.6519 of 2008 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 28th October, 2008 O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offence under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code. According to prosecution, sand which were seized from various persons were stolen by petitioner and another. Petitioner is the driver of the lorry, in which the stolen sand was transported. The incident happened between 4 PM on 1.10.2008 and 9 PM on 2.10.2008. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that petitioner is absolutely innocent of the allegations made and there is no evidence to connect him with the crime. He is first accused in the crime. Annexure-A will show that the vehicle was released by the police only on 2.10.2008 in Crime No.666/2008. The lorry was seized in connection with another crime and it was released only on 2.10.2008 in the evening and it is incorrect to say that the vehicle was used on 1.10.2008 because it was in the custody of the police at that time. It is also submitted that the vehicle was in the workshop, after the release, since it had a mechanical defect. The vehicle was seized from the workshop on 2.10.2008, it is submitted. BA.6519/08 2 It is also submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that second accused was granted regular bail. 4. This petition is opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that seizure was from the workshop, but it was in the night and that does not mean that the vehicle was not used for the commission of offence on the same day. As per the prosecution case, the incident happened between 4 PM on 1.10.2008 and 9 PM on 2.10.2008. It is possible that after the release of the lorry, it could have been used. The case is being enquired into and the petitioner is required for interrogation. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the involvement of the petitioner was revealed only when the second accused was arrested and questioned. 5. After hearing both sides, I am satisfied that in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, petitioner would be required for interrogation. Even the innocence, if any, can also be disclosed in the interrogation, if the petitioner is actually innocent. But, it is not possible to conclude at this stage merely based on Annexure-A that the petitioner is innocent. 6. In such circumstances, considering the nature of investigation required, I am not satisfied that it is a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. The incident occurred as early as between 1.10.2008 and 2.10.2008 and the petitioner was not available for interrogation. BA.6519/08 3 Petitioner is directed to surrender before the investigating officer within seven days from today. With this direction, petition is dismissed. K.HEMA, JUDGE vgs.