IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN MONDAY, THE 21ST DECEMBER 2009 / 30TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 7385 of 2009 CRIME NO.450 OF 2009 OF KUMILY POLICE STATION, IDUKKI DISTRICT PETITIONERS/ACCUSED --------------------------------------- 1. MOHAMMED RIYAS,S/O.MOHAMMED RAWUTHER, MAIN ROAD, UTHAMAPALAYAM. 2. P.KANNAN, MADHAVANKANAM, ANAVILASAM KARA, IDUKKI DISTRICT. 3. R.KANNAN, S/O.RAMAGIRI, MADAVANKANAM, ANAVILASAM KARA, IDUKKI DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.PHILIP T.VARGHESE SRI.THOMAS T.VARGHESE RESPONDENT: COMPLAINANT -------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF EKRALA, ERNAKULAM REPRESENTING THE S.I. OF POLICE, KUMILY POLICE STATION. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.V.TEKCHAND THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------ B.A. NO. 7385 OF 2009 ------------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 21st day of December, 2009 O R D E R This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Petitioners are accused Nos.1 to 3 in Crime No.450 of 2009 of Kumily Police Station, Idukki District. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioners are under Sections 457, 380 and 406 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The crime was registered by the police on the complaint filed by the de facto complainant before the Magistrate's Court, Peerumade having been referred to the police for investigation under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 3. The allegation in the complaint is that on 20.2.2009, the accused persons committed theft of coffee bean kept in the godown of the de facto complainant. It is also alleged that accused No.3 had sold certain quantity of cardamom which belonged to the de facto complainant and which was kept for storing with the third accused. B.A. NO. 7385 OF 2009 :: 2 :: 4. It would appear that there is a civil dispute between the parties. According to the petitioners, there was an agreement for sale between the parties, which led to the subsequent disputes. It is also pointed out that the complaint was filed by the de facto complainant only on 19.11.2009. 5. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that during investigation, it was found that no offence is made out against the petitioners and therefore, there is no intention for the police to arrest the petitioners. The submission made by the learned Public Prosecutor is recorded and the Bail Application is accordingly closed, with liberty to the petitioners to approach this Court as and when occasion arises. (K.T.SANKARAN) Judge ahz/