IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA MONDAY, THE 15TH SEPTEMBER 2008 / 24TH BHADRA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 5621 of 2008() ----------------------------- (CRIME NO.94/2008 OF VITHURA POLICE STATION ) PPETITIONER/ ACCUSED (A2): ------------------------------ SAM PRAKASH, AGED 47, S/O.GEORGE, SILPA BHAVAN, PAPPANAM, AMBALATHINKALU P.O., KATTAKKADA (VIA), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.R.T.PRADEEP SRI.V.VIJULAL RESPONDENT: COMPLAINANT: ------------------------- THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.K.S. SIVAKUMAR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K. HEMA, J. -------------------------------- B.A.NO.5621 OF 2008 ---------------------------------- Dated this the 15th day of September, 2008. O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. According to the prosecution, the petitioner along with six others went to the house of the defacto complainant, A1 to A4 went inside the house under the pretext of purchasing diamond worth Rs.15 lakhs from the defacto complainant and thereafter they fraudulently took away the diamonds and thereby committed the offence under Section 379 r/w Section 34 of I.P.C. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is the second accused in the crime. He has not committed any offence as alleged. According to the prosecution, he has gone to the house of the defacto complainant for the purpose of testing the worth of the diamonds but, he has not involved in the offence of theft, it is submitted. It is also pointed out that the defacto complainant is stated to be a poor agriculturist and it is doubtful how he is in possession of the diamonds worth Rs.15 lakhs. It is also submitted that the diamonds are already recovered on arrest of the first, third and the fourth accused. They are already B.A.NO.5621/08 . 2 released on bail. The petitioner is an employee of Latex and in case he is arrested and detained, he will lose his job, it is submitted. It is also submitted that the seventh accused was granted anticipatory bail by this Court and hence the petitioner may also be granted the same relief. 4. This petition is opposed. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the case of the seventh accused is different from that of the second accused. The seventh accused only introduced the other accused to the jeweller but, the petitioner is actually involved in the commission of the main offence. He was present along with the first, third and the 4th accused in the house of the defacto complainant and diamonds were recovered from their possession. It is also submitted that the petitioner has actual participation in the crime. 5. After hearing both sides, in the nature of the allegations made and the alleged involvement of the petitioner in the crime, I do not think it fit to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. The case of the seventh accused stands on a different footing and he had only a limited role in the offence. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is prepared to surrender before the investigating officer B.A.NO.5621/08 . 3 and a direction may be given to produce the petitioner before the Magistrate Court and to dispose of the bail application on the same day. The petitioner shall surrender before the investigating officer within seven days from today and on his surrender, he shall be produced before the learned Magistrate within twenty four hours in accordance with law. On such production of the accused, if any bail application is filed, it shall be disposed of on merit, in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible. It is need less to say that consideration for granting anticipatory bail and bail under Section 437 are different. K. HEMA, JUDGE. cl B.A.NO.5621/08 . 4