IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN THURSDAY, THE 7TH JANUARY 2010 / 17TH POUSHA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 7142 of 2009() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.193/2009 OF POZHIYOOR POLICE STATION PETITIONER (S): 4TH ACCUSED ------------------------------- BIJU @ KANNADI BIJU, AGED 24 YEARS, S/O. BABU, KUNCHAVILAKAM VEEDU, KOTTAPPU, MALAYINKEEZHU VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.R.GOPAN RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANTS --------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PARASALA. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.M.S.BREEZ THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. --------------------------------------------- B.A.No.7142 of 2009 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 7th day of January, 2010 ORDER 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.193 of 2009 of Pozhiyoor Police Station. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 379, 201, 411 and 413 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The prosecution case is that accused Nos.4 and 5 committed theft of a Mahindra Van belonging to the de facto complainant during the night of 20.9.2009 or in the early hours of 21.9.2009. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the name of the petitioner is not mentioned in the FI statement. That is not a ground for granting anticipatory bail. When an offence of theft is alleged, normally, one cannot expect the name of the accused to be mentioned in the F.I.R. in all cases. In view BA No.7142/2009 2 of the peculiar nature of the offence, sometimes, the identity of an offender may not be known to the de facto complainant. That does not mean that during investigation, the investigating officer cannot bring to book the real culprit. 4. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of the offence and other circumstances, I am not inclined to grant the discretionary relief under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in favour of the petitioner. 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 investigation of the case. Accordingly, the Bail Application is dismissed. K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE csl