IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT WEDNESDAY, THE 23RD JANUARY 2008 / 3RD MAGHA 1929 Bail Appl..No. 379 of 2008() ---------------------------- CRIME NO.572/2007 OF KOCHI HARBOUR POLICE STATION .................... : PETITIONER/ACCUSED ----------------------------------- K.S.THANKARAJ, S/O SIVARAMAN, AGED 31 YEARS, KOYIKKAPARAMBIL, FLAMKUNNAPPUZHA, VYPIN, KOCHI. BY ADV. SRI.JOBY CYRIAC RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT ------------------------ STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, FORT KOCHI, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.JAI GEORGE THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J. ---------------------- B.A.No.379 of 2008 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 23rd day of January 2008 O R D E R Application for anticipatory bail. The petitioner is the thirteenth accused in a crime registered for offences punishable inter alia under Sections 457 and 380 I.P.C. The crux of the allegations is that a container which was loaded and sealed and which was parked in the Cochin wharf was clandestinely removed from the wharf to a place in Kalamassery. Seal in the container was broken open. Another mini lorry was taken to the container. Some articles in the container were thieved and were transferred to the mini lorry. The mini lorry sped away. The container was closed, sealed and taken back to its place at Kochin wharf. The alleged incident took place on 27/9/2007. The crime was registered on 28/9/2007. The petitioner is not shown as an accused in the F.I.R. In the course of investigation, after the arrest of some of the co-accused, the complicity of the petitioner was revealed and he was brought on the array as the thirteenth accused. Some of the accused have approached this court for anticipatory bail. Some have approached this court for regular bail. Facts have been referred to in detail earlier in those orders. The crux of the allegations against the petitioner is B.A.No.379/08 2 that he was present along with the tenth accused at his request when he allegedly indulged in the culpable act of driving the container from the wharf to Kalamassery to facilitate commission of the crime. As per the intimation, the petitioner had also joined and he was also involved in the act of removal of articles from the container and loading the same into the mini lorry. The petitioner was arrayed as an accused in the course of investigation. He has not been arrested so far. He apprehends imminent arrest. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is absolutely innocent. He has been unnecessarily dragged into this crime. He is in noway connected with the tenth accused or any other accused. He may, in these circumstances, be granted anticipatory bail, it is prayed. 3. The learned Public Prosecutor opposes the application. The learned Public Prosecutor submits that the available inputs clearly indicate the complicity of the petitioner. The confession statement of the tenth accused eloquently speaks about the details of the involvement of the petitioner herein. The petitioner has to be interrogated and a proper resolution of the crime demands and requires the thorough interrogation of the petitioner herein. All the available inputs point to his complicity. B.A.No.379/08 3 At the moment, the petitioner may not be permitted to arm himself with an order of anticipatory bail which would hamper the smooth course of investigation. This petition may, in these circumstances, be dismissed, prays the learned Public Prosecutor. 4. Having considered all the relevant inputs, I find merit in the opposition by the learned Public Prosecutor. I am satisfied that there are no features in this case which would justify invocation of the extraordinary equitable discretion under Section 438 Cr.P.C. This, I agree with the learned Public Prosecutor, is a fit case where the petitioner must appear before the investigating officer or the learned Magistrate having jurisdiction and then seek regular bail in the normal and ordinary course. 5. In the result, this petition is dismissed. Needless to say, if the petitioner surrenders before the investigating officer or the learned Magistrate and applies for bail, after giving sufficient prior notice to the Prosecutor in charge of the case, the learned Magistrate must proceed to pass appropriate orders on merits, in accordance with law and expeditiously. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) jsr // True Copy// PA to Judge B.A.No.379/08 4 B.A.No.379/08 5 R.BASANT, J. CRL.M.CNo. ORDER 21ST DAY OF MAY2007