IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA MONDAY, THE 28TH JUNE 2010 / 7TH ASHADHA 1932 Bail Appl..No. 3385 of 2010() ------------------------------------------ CRMP.1185/2010 of D.C.& SESSIONS COURT,THODUPUZHA CRIME NO.245/2009 OF KARIMANNOOR POLICE STATION. .................... PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NO.4 ----------------------- SIYAD,S/O.ABDUL LATHEEF,AGED 24, RESIDING AT KANDETHIL HOUSE,ERATTUPETTA KARA, ERATTUPETTA VILLAGE,KOTTAYAM DIST. BY ADV. SRI.M.A.JOSEPH MANAVALAN SRI.P.A.MARTIN ROY RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT -------------------------- STATE OF KERALA THROUGH SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KARIMANNOOR POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.V.TEKCHAND THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: tss K.HEMA, J. ------------------ B.A. No. 3385 of 2010 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 28th day of June, 2010 O R D E R Petition for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offence is under Section 379 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. According to prosecution, accused nos. 1 to 3 committed theft of timber logs worth Rs.45,000/- and petitioner(A4) received stolen articles, knowing them to be stolen. The incident occurred between 30.07.2009 and 02.08.2009. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that petitioner is innocent of the allegations made. The incident happened as early as in 2009. Petitioner has not received any stolen articles from the accused. The articles are not so far recovered. Petitioner had surrendered before the investigating officer as and when directed by this court and he was questioned. 4. This petition is opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that as per the materials in the case diary, petitioner received stolen articles, knowing them to be stolen. Though petitioner appeared before the investigating officer as directed by this court, he merely denied his involvement and did not B.A. No. 3385 / 2010 2 co-operate with the investigation. The stolen articles are to be recovered and custodial interrogation of petitioner is required, it is submitted. 5. On hearing both sides, considering the serious nature of the allegations made and need for recovery of the stolen articles, I find that this is not fit to grant anticipatory bail. The incident happened as early as in 2009 and the petitioner is bound to co- operate with the investigation. Petitioner has not made out any ground to grant anticipatory bail. He has no case why co- accused falsely implicated him in the offence. This petition is dismissed. K. HEMA, JUDGE ln