IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA THURSDAY, THE 7TH AUGUST 2008 / 16TH SRAVANA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 4927 of 2008() ----------------------------------- CRIME NO.153/1998 OF MEDICAL COLLEGE POLICE STATION, KOZHIKODE, AND RE-NUMBERED AS 302/CR/53/2004 OF CBCID, SIG III, KOZHIKODE PETITIONER/4TH ACCUSED : ---------------------------------- NAZAR, S/O ABDUL HANEEFA, BEENA NIVAS, KOTTARAKARI, MURUKKUMPUZHA, CHIRAYINKEEZHU TALUK, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.GOPAKUMAR R.THALIYAL SRI.S.VENUGOPAL RESPONDENT/STATE/COMPLAINANT : ---------------------------------------------- STATE OFKERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.K.S.SIVAKUMAR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. ------------------------------ B.A. No.4927 OF 2008 ------------------------------ Dated this the 7th day of August, 2008 O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Sections 379, 411, 414, 120 B read with Section 34 IPC. According to the prosecution, the 2nd and 3rd accused, committed theft of a car and the petitioner who is the 4th accused and the 3rd accused received the stolen car and created documents to show that the car is having a Pondicherry registration. Thereafter, it was registered in the name of the 1st accused through the R.T.Office, Thiruvananthapuram. The 1st accused, the petitioner and others thereafter sold the car to another person. In the subsequent sale also, the petitioner and others actively participated. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was arrested in connection with another crime. In one of the cases, the police made a representation that the car was not recovered and wanted the petitioner's remand. But it was pointed out by the petitioner that the car was very much B.A.4927/2008 2 available in the police station premises at that time. A commission was taken out and the commissioner submitted a report that the car was in the premises of the police station. The remand report was hence withdrawn. The petitioner is falsely implicated in the crime. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that it is revealed in investigation that the petitioner was involved in the offence and the petitioner has not only committed the sale of the vehicle by the 1st accused to one person, but even thereafter, he was actively taking part in the sale of the same car to several persons. Similar offence was committed in respect of various other cars also. He is involved in various other cases. Hence, in an offence of this nature, it may not be proper to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner at this stage, it is submitted. On hearing both sides, I find that the nature and gravity of offence allegedly committed by the petitioner is not at all persuasive to grant anticipatory bail. It is also to be noted that though petitioner asserted his innocence, except the discrepancy in a remand report, nothing else could be pointed out. It is also B.A.4927/2008 3 not pointed out how that discrepancy will help the petitioner to get anticipatory bail in this case. Any and every discrepancy may (unless it is vital) suffice to grant anticipatory bail. In such circumstances, there is no ground to grant anticipatory bail . The petition is dismissed. K.HEMA, JUDGE pac