IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN MONDAY, THE 10TH AUGUST 2009 / 19TH SRAVANA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 3895 of 2009() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.823/09 OF ALUVA POLICE STATION .................... PETITIONER/ACCUSED : -------------------------------- NAZEER, S/O.LATE KUNJUMUHAMMED, AGED 34 YEARS, VELLUKUZHY HOUSE, KEEZMAD KARA, THOTTUMUGHAM, ALUVA EAST VILLAGE, ALUVA TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.TOM JOSE SRI.SREENI RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT -------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. 2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ALUVA POLICE STATION. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.TEKCHAND THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. --------------------------------------------- B.A.No.3895 of 2009 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 10th day of August, 2009 ORDER This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner is accused No.2 in Crime No.823 of 2009 of Aluva Police Station. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 379, 465 and 468 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The prosecution case is the following: The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Aluva, got secret information that the first accused, Usman was in possession of a stolen Mahindra Scorpio car bearing registration No.KL-16B 7301. The police seized the vehicle from the house of the first accused on 25.3.2009. Further investigation revealed that the number of the vehicle relates to a two wheeler, registered at Nedumangad registering authority. The police arrested the first accused. He disclosed that the vehicle was sold to him by the second accused, who is his brother. Further investigation reveals that the engine BA No.3895/2009 2 and chassis number of the car were not real and those were tampered with. According to the police, the petitioner was not available in the place and he could not be arrested. 4. The petitioner moved an application for anticipatory bail before the learned Sessions Judge, Ernakulam, which was dismissed by the order dated 8th April 2009. Learned Sessions Judge stated in the order thus: “The petitioner herein has no explanation how he obtained the vehicle which was seized by the police from the possession of the first accused.” 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the second accused (petitioner) purchased the vehicle from one Elizabeth John. The details are not furnished anywhere in the Bail Application. 6. Learned public prosecutor opposed the application for anticipatory bail. It is submitted that the petitioner is running rent-a-car business. The petitioner is suspected to be a person dealing with stolen vehicles. The investigation has to be conducted and the petitioner has to be interrogated. If anticipatory bail is granted to the petitioner, it would affect the proper investigation of the case. BA No.3895/2009 3 7. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not think that the petitioner is entitled to the discretionary relief under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. If the petitioner is granted anticipatory bail, it would affect the proper and smooth investigation of the case. The Bail Application is accordingly dismissed. K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE csl