IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA WEDNESDAY, THE 28TH JANUARY 2009 / 8TH MAGHA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 7129 of 2008() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.160/04 OF KATOOR POLICE STATION .................... PETITIONER: ACCUSED NO.1 -------------------------------- BOSE @ SUBHASH, S/O. CHANDRAN, KOOTAYIKKAL HOUSE, P.O. AVINISSERY, ANAKKALLE, THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.M.B.PRAJITH RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT -------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, KATOOR POLICE STATION, (CRIME NO. 160 OF 2004) KATTOOR, THRISSUR. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI.K.S.SIVAKUMAR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. ----------------------------------------- B.A.No. 7129 of 2008 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 28th January, 2009 O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offence is under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code. According to prosecution, petitioner, along with two others, committed theft of one Maruti car in September, 2004. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that petitioner is falsely implicated in this case, when he was arrested in connection with another case. He is prepared to abide by any conditions and he may be granted anticipatory bail, it is submitted. 4. This petition is opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that a crime was registered on 27.9.2004 in connection with theft of a Maruti car and a report was submitted as undetected. On 15.6.2008, petitioner was arrested by Valappad Police and on questioning, he confessed about the theft in this case. Therefore, a petition was filed for issuing production warrant, since he was in remand in BA.7129/08 2 connection with another case at that time. But, the learned Magistrate had already granted bail in that case and hence, he could not be arrested. Petitioner is required for arrest and investigation and hence, it is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail, it is submitted. 5. On hearing both sides, considering the nature of allegations made and the nature of investigation required, I am satisfied that the interrogation of petitioner is essential to ascertain the facts which are within his exclusive knowledge. Therefore, it is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. Petitioner is directed to surrender before the investigating officer and co-operate with the investigation. Whether he surrenders or not, police is at liberty to arrest him and proceed in accordance with law. With this direction, petition is dismissed. K.HEMA, JUDGE vgs.