IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN MONDAY, THE 12TH DECEMBER 2011 / 21ST AGRAHAYANA 1933 Bail Appl..No. 10074 of 2011() ------------------------------ CRIME NO.859/2011 OF VARAPUZHA POLICE STATION PETITIONER/ACCUSED: --------------------------------------- K.T.ANTONY, S/O.THOMAS, AGED 40 YEARS, KUTTICAL HOUSE, KOTHADU KARA, KADAMAKKUDI VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.THOMAS J.ANAKKALLUNKAL SRI.VIPIN NARAYAN RESPONDENT: COMPLAINANT: --------------------------- STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VARAPUZHA POLICE STATION THROUGH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.R.RANJITH THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12/12/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. --------------------------------------------- Bail Appln.No.10074 of 2011 ---------------------------------------------- Dated this the 12th day of December, 2011 ORDER This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner is the accused in Crime No.859 of 2011 of Varapuzha Police Station. 2. The offence alleged against the petitioner is under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The prosecution case is the following:- On 16/11/2011 at 3.30 hours, the Circle Inspector of Police had taken into custody a country boat loaded with sand, on the ground that sand was being illegally mined from Periyar. When the Sub Inspector of Police went to the spot to take the country boat, it was found that the country boat and the sand were stolen away. Crime No.859 of 2011 was registered for the offence under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner is the accused in that crime. He apprehends arrest and therefore he has filed this application for anticipatory bail. Bail Appln.No.10074/2011 : 2 : 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. 5. The allegations levelled against the petitioner are grave in nature. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not think that the petitioner is entitled to get the discretionary relief under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The matter requires investigation. 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 and smooth investigation of the case. For the aforesaid reasons, the Bail Application is dismissed. K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE skj