IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN TUESDAY, THE 15TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 24TH KARTHIKA 1933 Bail Appl..No. 8076 of 2011() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.557/2011 OF CHADAYAMANGALAM POLICE STATION PETITIONER/NOT ARRAYED AS ACCUSED: ---------------------------------------------- SAJIV KUMAR @ KANNAPPAN, S/O.GOPALAKRISHNAN, THODALIL VEEDU, KILIKOLLOOR P.O., KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.PRATHEESH.P RESPONDENT(S): --------------- STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CHADAYAMANGALAM POLICE STATION THROUGH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM 682 031. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. REMA THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. --------------------------- B.A.No.8076 of 2011 --------------------------- Dated this the 15th day of November, 2011 O R D E R This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner is accused No.3 in Crime No.557 of 2011 of Chadayamangalam Police Station, Kollam District. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 379 and 381 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The prosecution case is that accused No.1, who is working in the cashew factory belonging to the de facto complainant, committed theft of 54 bags of raw cashew nuts at 5.30 P.M. on 10.8.2011 and 25 bags of raw cashew nuts at about 9 P.M. on the same day and the cashew nuts were sold to accused No.3 who received the same and who took the cashew nuts in a vehicle from the premises of the factory. The BA 8076/11 2 prosecution case is that accused Nos.1 and 3 had previously chalked out the plan to commit theft of cashew from the factory and it was agreed by the first accused that he would inform accused No.3 at the appropriate time at which accused No.3 had to reach the place with a vehicle. As per this understanding, theft was committed as aforesaid. 4. The allegations levelled against the petitioner are serious 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 csl