IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH DECEMBER 2009 / 25TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 6603 of 2009 CRIME NO.638 OF 2006 OF MANJERI POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM PETITIONER: ACCUSED NOS.4 AND 5: -------------------- 1. MUTHUKOYA THANGAL, S/O.IMBICHIKOYA, KIZHAKKEPURATH HOUSE, CHOKKAD P.O., NILAMBUR TALUK. 2. POOKKOYA THANGAL, S/O. SEETHIKOYA THANGAL MATTATHIL HOUSE, NADUVATH P.O., KATTUMMUNDA, MALAPPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.ALEXANDER GEORGE RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT & STATE: --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. STATION HOUSE OFFICER, MANJERI POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.V.TEKCHAND THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------ B.A. NO. 6603 OF 2009 ------------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 16th day of December, 2009 O R D E R This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Petitioners are accused Nos.4 and 5 in Crime No.638 of 2006 of Manjeri Police Station, Malappuram District. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioners are under Sections 379, 465, 468 and 471 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The prosecution case is that in between the night of 18.10.2006 and the early hours of 19.10.2006, a Maruti Zen car belonging to the de facto complainant was stolen by accused Nos.1, 4 and 5. Later, the car was sold to accused No.6, who was running a workshop. It is alleged that the engine number and chassis number of the vehicle were changed and the vehicle was plied using the number of another vehicle which was involved in an accident. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that there is a racket engaged B.A. NO. 6603 OF 2009 :: 2 :: in such offences and that if anticipatory bail is granted to the petitioners, it would affect the proper investigation of this case as well as a series of other cases in which similar offences are alleged against the petitioners. 4. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature and gravity of the offence and the allegations levelled against the petitioners, I do not think that the petitioners are entitled to the discretionary relief under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. As rightly pointed out by the learned Public Prosecutor, grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners would adversely affect the proper investigation of the case. For the aforesaid reasons, the Bail Application is dismissed. (K.T.SANKARAN) Judge ahz/