IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT THURSDAY, THE 3RD APRIL 2008 / 14TH CHAITHRA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 1999 of 2008() ----------------------------- CRIME NO. 126/08 OF ALATHUR POLICE STATION PETITIONER ----------------- T.A.ASHARAF ALI, S/O.ABDUL KHADER AGED 35 YEARS, THINDIKKAL HOUSE, MENONPARA VADAKARAPATHY VILLAGE, CHITTUR TALUK PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.JOHNSON P.JOHN SRI.BABY MATHEW RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM. 2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE ALATHUR POLICE STATION, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. JAI GEORGE THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/04/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - B.A.No. 1999 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 3rd day of April, 2008 O R D E R Application for anticipatory bail. The petitioner apprehends arrest in a crime, which is registered under Section 379 I.P.C. The crux of the allegations is that a miscreant snatched away the gold chain worn by the defacto complainant, a lady. In the melee the mobile phone in the possession of the miscreant had fallen down and it was available at the scene of the crime. The defacto complainant had suffered minor injuries. There was a push and pull in the course of the attempt to take away the chain. The mobile phone, which was available provided clue to the Investigating Officer. He traced the owner. The owner on interrogation submitted that though the phone belongs to him, it was not in his possession and he had handed over the same to his brother-in-law, who is the petitioner herein. It will now have to be ascertained whether it was the petitioner himself, who had snatched the gold chain of the victim. Investigation has to proceed further. The petitioner has to be B.A.No. 1999 of 2008 2 apprehended and questioned. He will have to be got identified by the victim, if possible. It is only then that a decision can be taken whether the petitioner deserves to be arrayed as an accused or not. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent. The mobile phone does not belong to him. He has no responsibility for the version of some others. He was not actually in possession of the mobile phone. In these circumstances it is prayed that anticipatory bail may be granted to the petitioner. 3. The learned Prosecutor opposes the application. He submits that there is not even a semblance of a suggestion of misuse or abuse of powers of arrest. A bonafide investigation is being conducted. The investigators want to verify whether it was from the possession of the petitioner that the mobile phone had fallen at the scene of the crime. For this purpose he has to be interrogated. Efforts will have to be made to ascertain from the defacto complainant whether the petitioner was the person, who had committed the offence. At any rate, at this stage there is no justification for the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Such direction if granted would hamper the smooth course of investigation. He may be directed to appear before the B.A.No. 1999 of 2008 3 Investigating Officer, co-operate with him and explain his versions, if any, to claim absolution from the responsibility. At any rate, the discretion under Section 438 Cr.P.C. does not deserve to be invoked in favour of the petitioner, submit the learned Prosecutor. 4. I have considered all the relevant inputs. In a case like the instant one, I agree that the petitioner does not deserve to be armed with an order of anticipatory bail. He must surrender before the Investigating Officer, co-operate with him and seek regular bail if he were arrested by the Investigating Officer. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner airs an apprehension that the petitioner may be subjected to third degree method. I find no merit in the apprehension. I am satisfied that the petitioner must resort to the ordinary and normal procedure of appearing before the Investigating Officer. He must co-operate with the Investigators. No circumstances exist justifying the invocation of the jurisdiction under Section 438 Cr.P.C. 6. This application is dismissed with the above observations. (R. BASANT) tm Judge