IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA MONDAY, THE 6TH OCTOBER 2008 / 14TH ASWINA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 6190 of 2008() -------------------------------------------- CMP.NO. 1727/2008 OF DISTRICT COURT, KALPETTA CRIME NO.198/2008 OF KELAKAM POLICE STATION. .................... PETITONER/ 4TH ACCUSED: --------------------------------------- JITHISH RAJ @ SREEKUTTAN, AGED 23 YEARS, S/O.JAYARAJAN, 'KAPOOR NIVAS', PWD OFFICE ROAD, KALPETTA, WAYANADU DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.JESWIN P.VARGHESE RESPONDENT/ COMPLAINANT: ---------------------------------------------. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY SRI. M.S. BREEZ, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. ------------------------------ B.A. No.6190 OF 2008 ------------------------------ Dated this the 6th day of October, 2008 O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Sections 511 of 380 and 34 of I.P.C. According to the prosecution, the petitioner along with three other accused attempted to commit theft in a shop of the defacto complainant. Before the theft was committed, the offence was detected by the defacto complainant. But they could not be apprehended since they ran away. Petitioner is the 4th accused in the crime. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the petitioner was arrested under suspicious circumstances while he was travelling with the other co-accused in a jeep and another crime was registered by the Thalapuzha police. They were released on bail in that case. But now they are required for arrest in the present case, which was registered by the Kelakam police. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was arrested in connection with crime No.139 of 2008 B.A.6190 of 2008 2 by the Thalapuzha police and they were interrogated. They were arrested and also released on bail. Now the attempt is made to implicate the petitioner falsely in another crime which is the present case. The petitioner has already been interrogated in connection with the crime No.139 of 2008 and hence further interrogation may not be required. It is also submitted that while the petitioner was in custody in connection with crime No.139 of 2008 the petitioner was interrogated by the police and it is only after getting the report from the police that the learned Magistrate has considered the bail application and granted bail to the petitioner and the 3rd accused. They may be granted anticipatory bail, it is submitted. 5. This petition is opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the petitioner along with others made an attempt to commit theft and it was detected by the defacto complainant who could identify the accused at the spot. The other crime was registered when the petitioner and the others were found in suspicious circumstances. The petitioner is to be interrogated in connection with the commission of the present crime. It is not fit B.A.6190 of 2008 3 to grant anticipatory bail, it is submitted. On hearing both sides, I am satisfied that considering the nature of the allegations made against the petitioner and also the fact that petitioner is required for interrogation, it is not fit to grant anticipatory bail. The crime is registered as early on 15.08.2008 and the petitioners are not arrested in the crime so far. Hence the petitioner is directed to surrender before the Investigating Officer within seven days from today and co-operate with the investigation. With these directions, the petition is dismissed. K.HEMA, JUDGE pac