IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT TUESDAY, THE 22ND JANUARY 2008 / 2ND MAGHA 1929 Bail Appl..No. 8152 of 2007(J) ------------------------------ CRIME NO. 441/04 OF THODUPUZHA POLICE STATION A2.2768/2004 of SUB DIVL. MAGISTRATE, IDUKKI .................... PETITIONER : ACCUSED: ------------------------- JOSHY CYRIAC, AGED 41 YEARS, S/O.CYRIAC, VATTAKUDIYIL HOUSE, P.O.THAZHUVAMKUNNU, KALLOORKADU, MUVATTUPUZHA, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.RENJITH B.MARAR RESPONDENTS: ------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, THODUPUZHA POLICE STATION, THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. S.U. NAZAR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - B.A.No. 8152 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 22nd day of January, 2008 O R D E R Application for anticipatory bail. The petitioner apprehends arrest as second accused in a crime registered at the Thodupuzha police station as early as on 29.7.2004. Investigation is in progress. According to the petitioner he does not deserve to endure the trauma of arrest and detention. He therefore prays that directions under Section 438 Cr.P.C. may be issued in his favour. 2. The learned Prosecutor, with the help of the case diary and instructions available to him, narrates the case of the police as follows. A new vehicle was registered at Madras in the name of the first accused. He had availed a loan from a finance company. Two instalments were paid. But thereafter there was no trace of the vehicle or the first accused. The finance company, M/s. Cholamandalam finance, were making frantic enquiries about the vehicle and the first accused. B.A.No. 8152 of 2008 2 2. Thereafter we find the same vehicle - with the same Engine number and chassis number - being registered in Andra Pradesh in the name of certain person, who claims that he had nothing to do with the said vehicle. Subsequently the said vehicle is brought to Kerala. It is allegedly found in the possession of the petitioner. The vehicle at that time bore a Andra Pradesh registration number. Later that vehicle was re-registered in Kerala and the present number was assigned to the said vehicle in Kerala. The vehicle was found in the possession of the petitioner. It was re-registered in the name of one Shaji, who claimed that he had not even purchased the vehicle or applied for re-registration in his name. The vehicle was however found in the premises of the petitioner. He allegedly entered into agreement with one Jomon for the transfer of the said vehicle. Jomom paid amount and got the vehicle transferred to his name. Earlier an agreement was entered into between Jomon and the petitioner for transfer of the vehicle. Jomon after transfer of the vehicle had raised loan also on that vehicle in his name. B.A.No. 8152 of 2008 3 3. There was some dispute regarding the vehicle and it would appear that the vehicle was left at a workshop within the jurisdiction of Thodupuzha police station. On receipt of discreet information, the police went to the workshop, seized the vehicle under Section 102 Cr.P.C. and reported the seizure to the Sub Divisional Magistrate. The Sub Divisional Magistrate after enquiry has released the vehicle to Cholamandalam Finance, the original financier. Investigation revealed the various events which I have narrated above. The needle of suspicion is pointed at the petitioner. He, along with the first accused, it is assumed and inferred by the Investigating Officer, is responsible for the crime committed in respect of the vehicle. The petitioner is making himself scarce. He is not available for interrogation. He has to be arrested and interrogated to resolve the mystery of this crime. 4. The learned Prosecutor submits that there is no element of vexation or harassment involved., Bonafide and efficient investigation requires and demands that the petitioner is arrested and interrogated to ascertain the true details of the vehicle as also the whereabouts of the B.A.No. 8152 of 2008 4 first accused. In any view of the matter, the petitioner does not deserve to arm himself with an order of anticipatory bail, submits the Prosecutor. He may be directed to surrender before the Investigating Officer or the learned Magistrate and co-operate with the investigation. 5. I have considered all the relevant inputs. The case diary has been placed before me. I have perused the same. I find merit in the opposition by the learned Prosecutor. I am unable to find any features in this case, which would justify the invocation of the extra ordinary equitable discretion under section 438 Cr.P.C. in favour of the petitioner. This I am satisfied is a fit case where the petitioner must surrender before the Investigator or the learned Magistrate having jurisdiction and co-operate with the investigation for the proper resolution of the crime. 5. This application is accordingly dismissed. I may however hasten to observe that if the petitioner appears before the learned Magistrate and applies for bail after giving sufficient prior notice to the Prosecutor in charge of the case, the learned Magistrate must B.A.No. 8152 of 2008 5 proceed to pass orders on merits, in accordance with law and expeditiously. (R. BASANT) Judge tm