IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR TUESDAY, THE 22ND DECEMBER 2009 / 1ST POUSHA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 4682 of 2009() ----------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------------- C.CHANDRAN, S/O.GOPALAN, AGED 50 YEARS, CHEMBRAVALAPPIL HOUSE, NHANGATTIRI, PATTAMBI, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.BABU S. NAIR RESPONDENT(S): STATE: --------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CHELAKKARA POLICE STATION-THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-31. 2. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CHELAKKARA, THRISSUR DISTRICT. ADDL.R3 IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DT.9.9.09 IN CRL.M.A.5012/09 ADDL.R3. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VADAKKANCHERY POLICE STATION, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.S.U.NAZAR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/12/2009, ALONG WITH BA NO. 5772 OF 2009 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. ------------------------------------------------ B.A.NO.4682 & 5772 OF 2009 ----------------------------------------------- Dated 22nd December 2009 O R D E R Petitioner, a jwellery owner filed this petition under Section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure for pre-arrest bail anticipating his arrest contending that he has not purchased any stolen article and has nothing to do with commission of the alleged offences. It is contended that in August 2009, some police constables came to the jwellery shop of the petitioner and asked him to come to the office of the second respondent and when petitioner reached the office of second respondent on 10/8/2009, he was informed that one Subramaniyam was arrested in crime alleging theft in Chelakkara police station BA.4682 & 5772/09 2 and he is involved in several theft cases and Circle Inspector informed the petitioner that 72 grams of gold shall be given by the petitioner as thondi article and unless he prepares gold ingots and hand it over to the police, he will be implicated in the crime and in such circumstances, anticipatory bail is to be granted. Petitioner subsequently impleaded Sub Inspector of police, Vadakkanchery police station as additional respondent in B.A.4682/2009 on the allegation of anticipated arrest in a case registered in that police station also. Petitioner would contend that as police used to threaten the jwellery owner to produce gold ingots, Annexure-C government order was issued prescribing the procedure to be followed while effecting recovery of gold from BA.4682 & 5772/09 3 jwellery shops and hence police cannot insist the petitioner to produce gold ingots, when he has not purchased any stolen article. 2. Learned Public Prosecutor made available the case diary and submitted that it is only based on the confession statement of the accused, petitioner was implicated as an accused in the cases and confession statement of the accused who committed theft shows that he had sold the stolen gold ornaments to the jwellery shop of the petitioner and based on his confession statement, the accused was taken to the shop of the petitioner and he identified the shop as well as the petitioner. It is submitted that in such circumstances, for a proper investigation of the case, custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary BA.4682 & 5772/09 4 and hence anticipatory bail cannot be granted. 3. On hearing the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor and going through the case diary, I find that it is not a proper case to invoke the extra ordinary jurisdiction under Section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure to grant anticipatory bail as custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary for proper investigation of the cases. In such circumstances, petitions are dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to seek regular bail. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE. uj.