IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN FRIDAY, THE 19TH MARCH 2010 / 28TH PHALGUNA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 1468 of 2010() ----------------------------- CRMP.3921/2009 of D.C.& SESSIONS COURT,THODUPUZHA CRIME NO.302/2010 OF KARIMANNOOR POLCE STATION, IDUKKI. .................... PETITIONERS/2nd & 3rd ACCUSED: ------------------------------------------------- 1. SAJI, KALLARACKAL HOUSE, CHEPPUKULAM, THODUPUZHA. 2. TOMY, VARAKAIL HOUSE, UDUMBANNOR, THODUPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.M.R.SASITH RESPONDENT/ COMPLAINANT: --------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, BY SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CHENGANNUR POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. SRI. M.S.BREEZ, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T. SANKARAN, J. --------------------------- B.A. No. 1468 of 2010 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 19th day of March, 2010 O R D E R This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioners are accused Nos. 2 and 3 in Crime No.302/2010 of Karimannoor Police Station. 2. The offence alleged against the petitioners is under Section 379 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The prosecution case is that on 4/8/2009, the accused persons unlawfully entered into the property belonging to one Chacko and stealthily cut and removed teak trees standing in that property. They sold the timber in a furniture shop. 4. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that accused No.1 is a habitual offender and he is involved in other theft cases. Accused Nos.2 and 3 are close associates of accused No.1. 5. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of the offence and the allegations levelled against the petitioners, I am of the view that this is not a fit case for granting anticipatory bail. The petitioners are not B.A. No. 1468 / 2010 2 entitled to the discretionary relief under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. If anticipatory bail is granted to the petitioners, it would adversely affect the proper investigation of the case. For the aforesaid reasons, the Bail Application is dismissed. K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE scm