IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN FRIDAY, THE 14TH OCTOBER 2011 / 22ND ASWINA 1933 Bail Appl..No. 8251 of 2011() ----------------------------- Crime No.535 of 2009 of Pathanamthitta Police Station. PETITIONER/ACCUSED: -------------------- RAKESH S. MOHAN, S/O SMT.SHANTI MOHAN, SWARAJ, NEAR COLLECTORATE, PATHANAMTHITTA. BY ADV. SRI.C.V.MANUVILSAN SRI.P.G.SURESH SMT.K.VIDYA SRI.RAJAN VISHNURAJ RESPONDENT(S): --------------- STATE OF KERALA BY SUB INSPETOR OF POLICE,PATHANAMTHITTA, REPRESENTED THROUGH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. BY P.P.SRI.DHANESH MATHEW MANJOORAN THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14/10/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. --------------------------------- B.A.No.8251 OF 2011 --------------------------------- Dated this the 14th day of October, 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.535 of 2009 of Pathanamthitta Police Station. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 457, 461 and 380 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The prosecution case is that on 26.5.2009 during night, the house of the defacto complainant was broken open and gold ornaments, other articles and cash of Rs.25,000/- were stolen . The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the name of the petitioner is not included in the First Information Statement and that the petitioner is being proceeded against only to wreak vengeance against him by B.A.No. 8251 OF 2011 2 the Sub Inspector of Police. It is stated that the petitioner belongs to a very reputed family and that he is not involved in the case. 4. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that though the offence was committed in 2009, and though the petitioner was a suspect, the investigating officer did not arrest him earlier because it was thought that the petitioner could be made an accused only after some tangible evidence was obtained by the police. It is submitted that now sufficient materials have been collected to implicate the petitioner. 5. 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. If anticipatory bail is granted to the petitioner, it would adversely affect the proper and smooth investigation of the case. B.A.No. 8251 OF 2011 3 For the aforesaid reasons, the Bail Application is dismissed. K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE. cms