IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA TUESDAY, THE 3RD FEBRUARY 2009 / 14TH MAGHA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 7325 of 2008(A) ------------------------------------- CMP.4291/2008 of C.J.M.,KASARAGOD CRIME NO.779/2008 OF KASARGOD POLICE STATION .................... PETITIONER/ACCUSED : ----------------------------- MOHAMED IQBAL C.A., AGED 26 YEARS, S/O.AHAMMED HAJI, RESIDING AT KALAPPURA HOUSE, KOTTOOR POST, MULAYAR VILLAGE, KASARAGOD TALUK AND DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.T.MADHU RESPONDENT/STATE : -------------------------- THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, KASARAGOD POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.K.S.SIVAKUMAR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. ---------------------------------- B.A. No.7325 OF 2008 ---------------------------------- Dated this the 3rd day of February, 2009 O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Sections 403 and 406 of I.P.C. According to prosecution, petitioner wanted a car to be used in connection with the marriage. The defacto complainant procured the car from the registered owner and gave it to petitioner for the use. But petitioner did not return the car and instead he gave it to another person on a monthly rent of Rs.20,000/- and thereby committed the offence. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that the allegations are not true. Petitioner has not taken any car from the defacto complainant. The defacto complainant is engaged in the business of renting out cars and the RC owner of the car (which is involved in this case) is the relative of petitioner and the defacto complainant has deliberately given the name of petitioner and falsely implicated him in this case. 4. This petition is opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that considering the nature of allegations made, it is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. The car is not so far B.A.No.7325 of 2008 2 recovered. On hearing both sides, considering the serious nature of allegations made and the nature of investigation required especially, the recovery of the vehicle, I am satisfied that this is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. None of the facts stated by petitioner persuade me to invoke provision under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. Petitioner is required for investigation. Hence, the following order is passed : i) Petitioner is directed to surrender before the Investigating Officer forthwith and co-operate with the investigation. Whether he surrenders or not, police is at liberty to arrest him and proceed in accordance with law. ii) No application for anticipatory bail by petitioner in this crime will be entertained hereafter. The petition is dismissed. K.HEMA, JUDGE pac