IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA THURSDAY, THE 1ST JULY 2010 / 10TH ASHADHA 1932 Bail Appl..No. 3273 of 2010() ----------------------------- (CRIME NO.56/2010 OF PERUVANNAMUZHI POLICE STATION, KOZHIKODE) PETITIONER ---------------------- FAIZAL.K,S/O.AHMED KUTTY,AGED 29 YEARS, KUZHIYANCHERY HOUSE, ADIVARAM,KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SRI.K.A.SALIL NARAYANAN RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS -------------------------- STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.V.TEKCHAND THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J ----------------------- B.A No.3273 OF 2010 -------------------------------- Dated this the 1st day of July 2010 ORDER This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Sections 457, 380 r/w 34 of IPC. According to prosecution, first and second accused were arrested under suspicious circumstances by Thamarassery police on 02/05/2010. On questioning, it was revealed that they, along with third and fourth accused, committed theft of rubber sheet and latex and the place of incident is within the limits of Peruvannamuzhy police station. The case was transferred to that police station. As per the prosecution case, accused numbers 1 to 4 went to the place of occurrence and A1 to A3 broke open the building and removed the stolen articles in the autorikshaw belonging to fourth accused. After selling the same, Rs.5,000/- was given to fourth accused. 3. Petitioner is the fourth accused. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that petitioner is absolutely innocent of the allegations made. His name is not mentioned in the FIR. He is implicated only because of a confession statement of the co- accused. There is no evidence against him, it is submitted. B.A No.3273 OF 2010 2 4. This petition is opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that on questioning the accused who were arrested, it has come out that the autorikshaw belonging to petitioner was used for transportation of the stolen articles. It is also revealed that after the theft, Rs.5,000/- which was obtained after selling the stolen articles was handed over to petitioner. Petitioner's custodial interrogation is necessary for effecting the recovery of autorikshaw and for effective investigation, it is submitted. 5. On hearing both sides, taking into consideration the serious allegations made against petitioner and the need for recovery and custodial interrogation,I am satisfied that this is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. Petitioner is bound to surrender before the Investigating Officer and co-operate with investigation without any delay. Petition is dismissed. K.HEMA JUDGE vdv