IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA FRIDAY, THE 28TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 7TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 6981 of 2008() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.932/2008 OF THOPPUMPADY POLICE STATION .................... PETITIONER (S): ACCUSED -------------------- SHAJI ELDOS, 35 YEARS TRADESMAN, HAHIA SELF FINANCE ENGINEERING COLLEGE, S/O.ELDOS, POCKAYIL HOUSE CHENKARA DESOM KEERAMBARA VILLAGE, BHOTHATHANKETTU PO., KOTHAMANGALAM VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.NISHIN GEORGE VIJAYABABU RESPONDENT(S): --------------- STATE OF KERALA REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.K.S.SIVAKUMAR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. --------------------------------------------- B.A.No.6981 of 2008 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 28th November, 2008 O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Sections 380 and 454 IPC. According to prosecution, petitioner was arrested under suspicious circumstances on 8.6.2008 from Ottapalam railway station. Several articles like 4 mobile phones, 4 sim cards and cheque leaves issued from different banks were seized from his possession. Therefore, a crime was registered against him at the Shornur police station. In the course of investigation, it was revealed that petitioner committed theft of mobile phones and cheque leaves of a lady in Thoppumpady and offences under Sections 380 and 454 IPC were included. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that petitioner is absolutely innocent of the allegations made. According to allegations of the prosecution, theft was committed on 4.2.2008 at Thoppumpady and as per Annexure 5, which is a certificate issued from “Ilahia College of Engineering and Technology”, petitioner was working in the college as Tradesman since 16.10.2007, and as per the attendance book, he BA No.6981 /2008 2 had attended the college from 1.2.2008 to 7.2.2008. That means on the date of occurrence, on 4.2.2008, he was available in Muvattupuzha and it may not be possible for him to commit any offence at Thoppumpady, it is submitted. Learned counsel for petitioner also submitted that no complaint was filed before the police until petitioner was arrested and another crime was registered. Learned counsel for petitioner also submitted that petitioner was granted bail by the Ottappalam Magistrate Court when he was arrested. It is only when subsequent allegations came up that the petitioner filed this petition for anticipatory bail, it is submitted. 4. This petition is opposed. Learned public prosecutor submitted that the fact that petitioner was arrested with so many articles is revealed from the case diary, and petitioner has no explanation for possession of those articles. Those articles are suspected to be stolen articles. Investigation is only at the initial stage. The investigation is in progress. The fact that the article were stolen on 4.2.2008 cannot be belied only by Annexure 5. Learned public prosecutor pointed out that merely on the basis of Annexure 5, it is not proper to hold that the prosecution case is false, at this stage of investigation even without examining the BA No.6981 /2008 3 genuineness of Annexure 5. Even if the alleged theft committed on 4.2.2008 is excluded, petitioner has to explain possession of the other articles, which are suspected to be stolen. 5. On hearing both sides, considering the nature of allegations made, particularly the arrest of petitioner in suspicious circumstances with so many articles including sim cards, mobile phones and cheque leaves from different Banks etc., I do not find that it is a fit case to grant anticipatory bail, particularly when the investigation is at the very initial stage. The fact that complaint did not lodge alone may not be a ground to hold that there is no theft at all. In the light of peculiar facts in this case, petitioner is required for investigation and he shall appear before the Investigating Officer and co-operate with investigation without any delay. With this observation, petition is dismissed. K.HEMA, JUDGE csl