IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA FRIDAY, THE 20TH JUNE 2008 / 30TH JYAISHTA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 3924 of 2008() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.333/2006 OF YEROOR POLICE STATION. .................... PETITIONERS --------------------------- 1. BIJESH,S/O. VISWANATHAN SANTHOSHALAYAM VEEDU, YEROOR MURI, YEROOR VILLAGE. 2. RANJITH @ KUTTU, S/O. CHANDRA BABU KALLIDICHIL VEEDU, YEROOR MURI YEROOR VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.VINOY VARGHESE KALLUMOOTTILL RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM. 2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE YEROOR POLICE STATION,PATHANAPURAM TALUK. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. M.S. BREEZ. THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K. HEMA, J. ------------------------------------------ Bail Appl. No. 3924 of 2008 ------------------------------------------ Dated this the 20th day of June, 2008. ORDER Petition for bail. 2. A crime is registered under Sections 379, 411 and 34 of IPC against the petitioners in connection with the theft of a jeep. Petitioners are accused nos. 3 and 4 in the crime. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are totally innocent of the allegations made and they were falsely implicated on the basis of a confession statement made by the first accused. According to him, certain people approached them and sought their help to take possession of vehicles involved in violation of hire purchase agreement. Accordingly, in one of the case, petitioners happened to go along with one such group believing their representations. But, thereafter the petitioners knew that those persons were not involved in taking possession of vehicles for breach of terms of hire purchase agreement but they were connected to a vehicle-theft racket and they moved out of their company. But, later, petitioners' names are stated by the accused to the police in all the cases where theft of vehicle was [B.A.No.3924/08] 2 involved. On advice of petitioners' family, they surrendered before the Magistrate court on 15.5.2008. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the petitioners are actually involved in the offence and it was committed at 2 a.m. in the morning. The allegations to the contrary are not correct. The jeep could not be recovered so far. The investigation is only at the initial stage. The petitioners were not available for arrest, since they surrendered before the Magistrate court. In such circumstances, if bail is granted to the petitioners at this stage the investigation will be adversely effected, it is submitted. I am satisfied of the submissions made by learned Public Prosecutor. There is also nothing to support the contentions raised by the petitioners about their innocence. Petition is dismissed. K. HEMA, JUDGE. Krs. [B.A.No.3924/08] 3