IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN TUESDAY, THE 2ND MARCH 2010 / 11TH PHALGUNA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 423 of 2010() ---------------------------- CRIME NO.375/09 OF CHADAYAMANGALAM POLICE STATION, KOLAM .................... PETITIONER/2ND ACCUSED ------------------------------------------ S.SATHEK ALI, S/O. SAINULABDEEN, AGED 28 YEARS, KALUTHUVILAGATHUPUTHEN VEEDU, THAIKAVU, KADAYALKALIYAL P.O. BY ADV. SRI.SUMAN CHAKRAVARTHY RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT -------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.TEKCHAND THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. --------------------------------------------- B.A.No.423 of 2010 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 2nd day of March, 2010 O R D E R This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner is accused No.3 in Crime No.375 of 2009 of Chadayamangalam Police Station. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 457, 461 and 380 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The prosecution case is that in between the night of 7.5.2009 and in the early hours of 8.5.2009, Vilayil Traders was broke open and theft of 1355 kgs. of rubber sheets was committed. It was also reported that Rs.5,000/- was taken from the shop. The crime was registered as Crime No.375 of 2009 of Chadayamangalam Police Station. The allegation against the petitioner is that he received the stolen articles knowing fully well that the articles were stolen. 4. It is stated that one of the accused who was arrested in the case has disclosed that he had sold the rubber sheets to BA No.423/2010 2 the petitioner. There are also other materials, prima facie, to indicate that the petitioner is involved in the offence. 5. The petitioner moved the Sessions Court, Kollam for anticipatory bail. That application was dismissed by the order dated 7th January, 2010. The order shows that in Crime No.649 of 2009 of Venjaramoodu Police Station also, there is an allegation that the petitioner received 900 rubber sheets, which was stolen property, knowing fully well that it was stolen property. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that even assuming that the allegations levelled against the petitioner are true, no offence under Sections 457, 461 and 380 would be made out. 7. The learned Public Prosecutor replied that the offence against the petitioner would be under Section 411 of the Indian Penal Code. It is submitted that Section 411 can be added at any time and that a report will be filed without delay in this regard. Simply because Section 411 IPC is not mentioned in the FI statement, that by itself would not enable the petitioner to get anticipatory bail. The allegation against him is specific. The BA No.423/2010 3 allegation is that he received the stolen property. The appropriate Section of offence would be Section 411 of IPC. Even if that Section was omitted to be included in the FI statement, that is not a ground for claiming anticipatory bail. 8. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature and gravity of the offence and the allegations levelled against the petitioner, I do not think that the petitioner is entitled to the discretionary relief under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. If anticipatory bail is granted to the petitioner, it would adversely affect the proper investigation of the case. Custodial interrogation may be required during investigation. For the aforesaid reasons, the Bail Application is dismissed. K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE csl