IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN TUESDAY, THE 24TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 3RD AGRAHAYANA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 6717 of 2009 CRIME NO.641 OF 2009 OF PANANGAD POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM. PETITIONER: 5TH ACCUSED: -------------------- NEBIN V.L., AGED 26 YEARS, S/O. SABU SAMUEL, VALIYAPARAMBIL HOUSE, CHUNGATHTHARA P.O., MALAPPURAM DIST. BY ADV. SRI.V.JOHN SEBASTIAN RALPH SRI.I.J.AUGUSTINE RESPONDENT: COMPLAINANT: --------------- THE S.I. OF POLICE, PANANGAD POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM, THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.TEKCHAND THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------ B.A. NO. 6717 OF 2009 ------------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 24th day of November, 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 the fifth accused in Crime No.641 of 2009 of Panangad Police Station. 2. The offence alleged against the petitioner is under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The prosecution case is that on 27.5.2009 at 3 AM, the accused persons robed a sum of Rs.38,556/- from a patrol bunk after locking the person in charge of the petrol bunk in the generator room. It is stated that the other accused were arrested. The petitioner is not arrested so far. The petitioner submits that he is innocent. He is a friend of the fourth accused. The petitioner is employed in Bangalore. He came to Kerala during the relevant period. The petitioner states that he only travelled in the vehicle. There was no pre-meditation by the other accused and the petitioner, submits the counsel for the petitioner. B.A. NO. 6717 OF 2009 :: 2 :: 4. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the materials on record would clearly indicate that there was meeting of minds of all the accused and that the offence was committed as per the plan chalked out by all the accused persons. 5. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that if the petitioner is granted anticipatory bail, it would cause adverse impact on the proper investigation of the case. The discretionary relief under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure cannot be extended in favour of a person who is accused of an offence as alleged in the present case. For the aforesaid reasons, the Bail Application is dismissed. (K.T.SANKARAN) Judge ahz/