IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN MONDAY, THE 2ND NOVEMBER 2009 / 11TH KARTHIKA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 6216 of 2009() ------------------------------------ CRIME NO. 167/2009 OF POTENCODE POLICE STATION ...................... PETITIONER(3RD ACCUSED): ------------------------------------------- SURESH KUMAR.V,CHIRAVILAKATHU VEEDU, KUDAVOOR, VENGODE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADVS. SRI.M.R.RAJESH SMT.A.K.PREETHA SRI.M.V.LALU MATHEWS RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT: ------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. BY SRI. M.S.BREEZ PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T. SANKARAN, J. --------------------------- B.A. No. 6216 of 2009 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 2nd day of November, 2009 O R D E R The petitioner apprehends arrest in connection with Crime No. 167/2009 of Pothencode Police Station. According to the petitioner, he is not an accused in the case. He states that he made inquiries and found that one Suresh Kumar, S/o. Velukutty, Kazhuthumveedu, Vengode, Thatchapalli Muri, Keezhthonnakkal Village is an accused in the Crime. The address of the petitioner is shown in the Bail Application as well as in his Photo Identity Card which is produced along with this bail application. The address in the Photo Identity Card is the following: “Suresh Kumar.V, S/o. Velukutty, Chiravilakathu Veedu, 1, Vengode, Pothencode.” The address shown in the Bail Application reads as follows: “ Suresh Kumar.V, Chiravilakathu Veedu, Kudavoor, Vengode, Thiruvananthapuram.” 2. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the question of identity is not very relevant now, as charge sheet was filed in the case after completing the investigation on B.A. No. 6216 of 2009 2 14.08.2009. Now, the case is pending as C. C. NO. 820/2009 before the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class-I, Attingal. 3. When the investigation of the case was completed and charge sheet was filed, the investigating officer will not arrest an accused person unless a warrant is issued by the Court for that purpose. Or else, further investigation under Section 173(8) should be pending in the case. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that no warrant was issued and no further investigation under Section 173(8) is pending. In the facts and circumstances of the case, it cannot be said that the apprehension of arrest put forward by the petitioner in the Bail Application is reasonable and just, in view of the submission made by the learned Public prosecutor as above. The Bail Application is closed with liberty to the petitioner to approach this court again as and when occasion arises. K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE ln