IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI TUESDAY, THE 23RD DECEMBER 2008 / 2ND POUSHA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 7328 of 2008() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.10/08 OF SHORANUR POLICE STATION PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 3 & 5: --------------------------------- 1. SALMAN, S/O.BASHEER, POOVIL HOUSE, KOOLIKKAI, MEPPADAM P.O. MAMPAD, NILAMBUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DIST. 2. SHEREEF P. S/O.MOHAMMED, PUTHUMALIYEKKAL HOUSE, MEPPADAM P.O. MAMPAD, NILAMBUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DIST. BY ADV. SRI.P.SAMSUDIN RESPONDENT: COMPLAINANT ------------------------------------ THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE RAILWAY POLICE SHORNUR, THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI JIKKU JACOB THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.C.HARI RANI, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - BAIL APPLICATION NO. 7328 OF 2008 - - - - - - - - - ----------------------- - - - - - - DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF DECEMBER, 2008 O R D E R Petitioners, who are accused Nos.3 and 5 in Crime No.10/2008 of Shoranur Railway Police Station for the offence punishable under Section 3(a) of Railway Properties Unlawful Possession Act, 1966, seek anticipatory bail. The prosecution allegations are that on 28-10-2008 at 5.45 a.m.while the C.I. of RPF and men were on patrolling duty to find out the wooden logs stolen from railway property at Pandikkad, they questioned a group of persons found in a mini lorry, A1 was arrested and other persons ran away from the place. On the basis of confession statement of A1, the petitioners are implicated in the crime. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor . 3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioners have not committed any offence and they were implicated on mistaken identity. 4. This application is opposed by the learned Public Prosecutor and submitted that the investigation of the present crime is not yet completed. 3. In the circumstances I find that if this application is allowed at this stage, it will affect the investigation. I find no reason to invoke the extra ordinary jurisdiction envisaged under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. Accordingly, the Bail application is dismissed. . M.C.HARI RANI,JUDGE. ks.