IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN FRIDAY, THE 16TH OCTOBER 2009 / 24TH ASWINA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 5618 of 2009() --------------------------------------- CRIME NO.527/2009 OF GURUVAYOOR POLICE STATION, THRISSUR .................... APPLICANT/ACCUSED: ------------------------------------- P.ALI, AGED 43 YEARS, S/O. KUNJU MOIDU, PALAKKAL HOUSE, KONDOORKKARA.P.O., KALLADIPALLA VIA, PATTAMBI. BY ADV. SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU SRI.VIPIN NARAYAN RESPONDENT/ COMPLAINANT: ----------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM REP. BY S.I. OF POLICE, GURUVAYOOR POLICE STATION. SRI. M.S.BREEZ, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T. SANKARAN, J. --------------------------- B.A. No. 5618 of 2009 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 16th day of October, 2009 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.5 in Crime No.527/2009 of Guruvayoor Police Station. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 457, 461, 380 and 411 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The prosecution case is that the petitioner, who is running a shop has received the stolen articles, knowing that the articles were stolen. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that according to the prosecution, the stolen articles were recovered and there was no necessity for the arrest and detention of the petitioner or for the custodial interrogation. At the same time, the petitioner does not admit that recovery was effected from his residence. The petitioner is still free to dispute the search of his house and the recovery, at the trial B.A. No. 5618/2009 2 stage. As per law, the duty of the investigating agency is to produce sufficient materials before court to prove the offence. At this stage, normally, the court cannot dictate what should be done by the investigating officer or what should not be done. It is in the discretion of the investigating officer. The offence alleged against the petitioner is very serious. Custodial interrogation of the petitioner may become necessary. 5. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that this is not a fit case where the discretionary relief under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure can be granted in favour of the petitioner. If anticipatory bail is granted to the petitioner, it would adversely affect the smooth and proper investigation of the case. For the aforesaid reasons, the Bail Application is dismissed. K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE scm