IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT TUESDAY, THE 21ST AUGUST 2007 / 30TH SRAVANA 1929 Bail Appl..No. 4986 of 2007() ----------------------------- CRIME NO. 489/07 OF KASABA POLICE STATION, PALLURUTHY PETITIONER:A3 ---------------------------- ANEESH A., S/O. APPACHAN, AGED 24 YEARS, RESIDING AT KAREEPPADATHU NIKARTHU HOUSE, ERAMALLOOR P.O., CHERTHALA TALUK, ALLEPPEY DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.V.SANTHARAM SRI.ANTO THOMAS RESPONDENTS: ------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CUSBA POLICE STATION, KOCHI THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. (CRIME NO.489/07, CUSBA POLICE STATION, PALLURUTHY, KOCHI). BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. S.U. NAZAR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/08/2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - B.A.No. 4986 of 2007 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 21st day of August, 2007 O R D E R Application for anticipatory bail. The petitioner is the third accused. Altogether there are five accused persons. The crime has been registered under Section 379 I.P.C. Investigation is in progress. The petitioner apprehends imminent arrest. 2. The defacto complainant complained of theft of a two wheeler kept in his residential premises on 19.7.2007. F.I.R. was registered. No person was arrayed as accused. Accused 1 and 2 were later arrested in another crime at another police station on 25.7.07. The arrested accused were interrogated. They allegedly made confession about theft of various other vehicles. The confession statement included information about the theft of the vehicle in the instant case. Accused 1 and 2 allegedly confessed that they had allegedly committed the crime along with the petitioner herein/A3. Information about the involvement of accused 1 to 3 in the crime was passed on to the Kasaba police station, Palluruthy by the officials at B.A.No. 4986 of 2007 2 such other police station. Accordingly accused 1 to 3 have been brought on the array of accused. The vehicle was sold to Accused 4 and 5. They have also been subsequently arrayed as accused. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is absolutely innocent. The first accused has animus against the petitioner and he had threatened the petitioner that he will wreak vengeance against him by implicating him in cases. The alleged statement implicating the petitioner was given by accused 1 and 2 with the sole intention of vexing and harassing the petitioner. They are involved in many other crimes. The petitioner is not involved in any other case. Merely because of the confession of the co-accused, the petitioner may not be subjected to the trauma of arrest and incarceration in prison. The vehicle has already been recovered. There is nothing to be recovered now. In these circumstances it is prayed that anticipatory bail may be granted to the petitioner. 4. The learned Prosecutor opposes the application. He submits that the investigation is not complete. The confession statements of the co- accused point to the involvement of the petitioner in the alleged crime of theft. The learned Prosecutor concedes that there is no prior history of B.A.No. 4986 of 2007 3 criminal antecedents to the petitioner. All the same, the petitioner has to be interrogated. His role in the commission of the crime has to be ascertained. Thorough interrogation of the petitioner is necessary to unearth all the details about the crime committed. At this stage, it is not necessary to permit the petitioner to arm himself with an order of anticipatory bail. The alleged animosity between accused 1 and 3 has no legs to stand on. The petitioner may be directed to appear before the Investigating Officer. The Investigating Officer may be given opportunity to closely and exhaustively interrogate the petitioner and effect arrest, if necessary. 5. Having considered all the relevant inputs, I find merit in the opposition raised by the learned Prosecutor. At the moment and with the available inputs there is nothing to suspect that the petitioner has been implicated by the co-accused with any intention of vexing and harassing him. At any rate, I am satisfied that the extra ordinary equitable discretion under Section 438 Cr.P.C. does not deserve to be invoked in favour of the petitioner. 6. This application is accordingly dismissed. Needless to say, if the petitioner appears before the Investigating Officer or the learned Magistrate and applies for bail after giving sufficient prior notice to the B.A.No. 4986 of 2007 4 Prosecutor in charge of the case, the learned Magistrate must proceed to pass orders on merits, in accordance with law and expeditiously. (R. BASANT) Judge tm