IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA FRIDAY, THE 30TH JULY 2010 / 8TH SRAVANA 1932 Bail Appl..No. 3963 of 2010() ----------------------------- (CRIME NO.866/2010 OF PALARIVATTOM POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM) ACCUSED --------------------------- S.RAVI, AGED 40, S/O.R.SUBBAYYA VISUVANATHAM, PUTHUR, SIVAKASI VIA SATHUR TALUK, KAMARAJ DISTRICT, TAMIL NADU, NOW RESIDING AT C/O.YAHIYA, MUKKUMURIYAN PARAMBU, ANCHUMANA, EDAPPALLY P.O., KOCHI-24. BY ADV. SRI.I.T.GEORGE SRI.T.B.SURENDRAN RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT -------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM (S.I.OF POLICE, PALARIVATTOM P.S) PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.K.S.SIVAKUMAR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J ----------------------- B.A No.3963 OF 2010 -------------------------------- Dated this the 30th day of July 2010 ORDER This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Sections 403 and 420 IPC. According to prosecution, petitioner was doing ironing work and de facto complainant entrusted him some clothes for ironing. By mistake, she had given a saree within which gold ornaments were kept. 13 sovereigns of gold ornaments were kept in a small cloth bag inside the fold of the saree. Petitioner misappropriated the same and did not return the gold ornaments and therefore, a complaint was lodged. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that petitioner and his father were engaged in ironing cloths. He has no idea about the ornaments allegedly lost. Petitioner's father was taken by Palarivattom police and he was detained in custody. Therefore, petitioner felt that he would also be taken into custody and hence he left the place. This raised some suspicion in the mind of police and hence, petitioner requested for an opportunity to explain his innocence to the Investigating Officer. Petitioner also appeared before the Investigating Officer and he was questioned. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that petitioner appeared before the Investigating Officer and he was questioned by police. But, petitioner was not giving a consistent statement. B.A No.3963 OF 2010 2 Petitioner's custodial interrogation will be necessary to find out his complicity in the offence and hence, this is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail, It is submitted. 5. On hearing both sides, I find that petitioner's custodial interrogation will be necessary for an effective investigation and this is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. Petitioner is bound to surrender before the Investigating Officer and co-operate with investigation. Petition is dismissed. K.HEMA JUDGE vdv