IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN TUESDAY, THE 10TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 19TH KARTHIKA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 6481 of 2009() ----------------------------------- CRIME NO. 339/2009 OF FEROKE POLICE STATION .................... PETITIONERS/ACCUSED: ------------------------------------ 1. M.P. MOHAMMED RAFEEQUE, AGED 32 YEARS, S/O. MOIDENKUTTY HAJI, MANAGING PARTNER, SWARNALAYA JEWELLERY, PARAPPANANGADI, PARAPPANANGADI.P.O, THIRURANGADI TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 2. ABOOBACKER, AGED 36 YEARS, S/O. ADBULLAKUTTY, PROPRIETOR, BARAKA JEWELLERY, PARAPPANANGADI, PARAPPANANGADI.P.O, THIRURANGADI TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.V.N.RAMESAN NAMBISAN RESPONDENT: --------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. (STATION HOUSE OFFICER, KOYILANDI) BY SRI. V. TEKCHAND PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T. SANKARAN, J. --------------------------- B.A. No. 6481 of 2009 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 10th day of November, 2009 O R D E R Apprehending arrest on an accusation of having committed non-bailable offence in Crime No.339/2009 of Feroke Police Station, the petitioners have filed this application for Anticipatory Bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted the following: On 15.07.2009, a theft took place in the house of the defacto complainant. Six sovereigns of gold and Rs. 40,000/- were stolen from his house. On arrest of the accused, it was revealed that a portion of the gold items was sold by him in two jewelleries in Parappanangadi. The investigating agency suspects that those two jewelleries are the jewelleries owned by the petitioners herein. At present, the petitioners are not arrayed as accused persons. The police went to the Jewellery owned by the petitioners. At that time, the jewellery owned by the first petitioner was closed down. In the jewellery owned by the second petitioner, he was not found. It is submitted that the question of arrest would arise only if the petitioners are involved B.A. No. 6481 of 2009 2 in the offence. According to the learned Public Prosecutor, the petitioners are not making themselves available for a proper investigation. 3. Since the petitioners are not made accused persons, as of now, it cannot be stated that there is a genuine reason for apprehending that the petitioners would be arrested. Recording the aforesaid submission made by the learned Public Prosecutor, the Bail Application is closed with liberty to the petitioners to approach this court again as and when occasion arises. K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE. ln