IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT FRIDAY, THE 22ND FEBRUARY 2008 / 3RD PHALGUNA 1929 Bail Appl..No. 1024 of 2008() ----------------------------- CMP.452/2008 of J.M.F.C.-II,NEDUMANGAD CRIME 277/07 OF VATTIYOORKAVU POLICE STATION .................... PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 & 2 ------------------------------ 1. SURESHKUMAR, S/O.RAMACHANDRAN V.P.11/595, SUJITHA NIVAS, KODUNGANNOOR WARD VATTIYOORKAVU VILLAGE. 2. SANTHOSH, S/O. VIJAYAN, SANDHYA BHAVAN VENMANIYOTTU, ERAMTHADIKKADE, ANCHAL, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.T.A.UNNIKRISHNAN SRI.K.SATHEESH KUMAR RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT ------------------------ STATE OF KERALA REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR ADV.SRI.S.U.NAZER THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/02/2008, THE COURT ON 22/02/2008 PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. ```````````````````````````````````````````````````` B.A. No. 1024 OF 2008 A ```````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 22nd day of February, 2008 O R D E R Application for regular bail. Petitioners are accused Nos.1 and 2. They face allegations in a crime registered for offences punishable under sections 457 and 380 IPC. On 9.8.07 a motor cycle belonging to the de facto complainant kept in his house was thieved. Crime was registered. Investigation commenced. On 26.1.08, the petitioners were found travelling in a motor cycle. That motor cycle bore a fake and false number. The police intercepted the petitioners. On closer interrogation, it was revealed that the vehicle, which was seized from their possession, was the vehicle which was involved in the crime registered at the instance of the de facto complainant. The petitioners have been arrested. They continue in custody from 26.1.08. Investigation is in progress. Final report has not been filed. BA.1024/08 : 2 : 2. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are innocent. They, who remain in custody from 26.1.08, may now be enlarged on bail, it is prayed. 3. The learned Public Prosecutor opposes the application. He submits that the investigation is not complete. The learned Public Prosecutor further points out that accused Nos.3 and 4 have not been arrested yet. It is also pointed out that the petitioners have criminal antecedents. They are involved in other theft cases. In any view of the matter, the petitioners may not be enlarged on bail, it is prayed. 4. I find merit in the opposition by the learned Public Prosecutor. I am satisfied that investigators in a serious crime like this are certainly entitled to further time to complete the investigation. In any view of the matter, the discretion under section 439 Cr.P.C. cannot and does not deserve to be invoked in favour of the petitioners, I conclude. 5. In the result, this petition is dismissed. However, I may hasten to observe that the petitioners shall be at liberty to BA.1024/08 : 3 : move this Court for bail again at later stages of the investigation not, at any rate, prior to 07/03/2008. The investigators shall, in the meantime, make every endeavour to complete the investigation. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) aks