IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN WEDNESDAY, THE 24TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 5TH PHALGUNA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 911 of 2010() ---------------------------- CRIME NO.55/2010 OF NEMOM POLICE STATION PETITIONER/3RD ACCUSED ------------------------------------------ ALSAD, AGED 21 YEARS, S/O.SHAHUL HAMEED, MARUTHALATHALA VEEDU, THEKKINAKAM, PRAVACHAMBALAM, PALLICHAL VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.BLAZE K.JOSE RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT -------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM REPRESENTING SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, NEEMOM POLICE STATION. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.TEKCHAND THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. --------------------------------------------- B.A.No.911 of 2010 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 24th day of February, 2010 O R D E R This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner is accused No.3 in Crime No.55 of 2010 of Nemom Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram District. 2. The petitioner apprehends arrest on an accusation of having committed non bailable offences in the crime. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the offences alleged against the accused are under Sections 341, 323 and 427 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. All these offences are bailable offences. If so, an application for anticipatory bail is not maintainable. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner points out that in the FI statement there is an averment that Rs.5,000/- was lost by the de facto complainant. The apprehension of the petitioner is that an offence under Section 379 IPC would be incorporated and the petitioner would be arrested. 4. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the BA No. 911/2010 2 investigation so far held shows that the offence under Section 379 IPC is not made out and therefore, the apprehension voiced by the petitioner is without substance. Since the offences alleged against the petitioner are bailable, the petitioner is at liberty to apply for regular bail. The Bail Application is closed with these observations. However, it is made clear that the petitioner would be free to approach this Court if any non bailable offence is incorporated in the case. K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE csl