IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA WEDNESDAY, THE 26TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 5TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 7112 of 2008() ----------------------------- CRIME NUMBER NOT KNOWN PETITIONER:- ------------------------------ NAWAB, AGED 34 YEARS, S/O.ABDUL LATHEEF, KIZHAKKEVELIKKAKATH, EDATHALA. BY ADV. SRI.N.K.MOHANLAL RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, ALUVA. 2. SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ALUVA. 3. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.M.S.BREEZ THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K. HEMA, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - B.A. No. 7112 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 26th day of November,2008 O R D E R Petition for anticipatory bail. 2. According to prosecution, accused 1 and 2 approached de facto complainant and expressed their willingness to purchase two tipper lorries belonging to him. The 1st accused insisted that an agreement should be executed in the name of 2nd accused and accordingly, it was executed also. Out of the total sale consideration of Rs.6,45,000/-, Rs.1,65,000/- was paid as advance and petitioner's vehicles were handed over to accused. Thereafter, the vehicles were dismantled and balance amount was not paid also. Thereby, accused have cheated de facto complainant and crime was registered under sections 406 and 420 read with section 34 IPC. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that there is absolutely no evidence to connect petitioner with the crime. No agreement is executed in favour of petitioner. He is only a vehicle broker and he has nothing to do with the transaction. Petitioner is unnecessarily made an accused without any basis, it is submitted. 4. This petition is opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that specific role of petitioner is mentioned in the BA 7112/08 -2- complaint. The investigation also reveals that petitioner has cheated de facto complainant in furtherance of common intention with 2nd accused. The vehicles are to be traced out. Petitioner is required for interrogation. The crime was registered as early as on 30-10-2008 and petitioner is not available for investigation. 5. On hearing both sides, considering the serious nature of the allegations made and nature of investigation required, I am satisfied that this is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. Though Petitioner would assert his innocence, there is only a bare assertion. Petitioner's interrogation will be required to reveal the relevant facts, which are within his exclusive knowledge. I am satisfied of the submissions made by learned Public Prosecutor that petitioner's interrogation is required. Hence, petitioner is directed to surrender before the Investigating Officer without any delay and co-operate with the investigation. With this direction, this petition is dismissed. K.HEMA, JUDGE. mn.