IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA TUESDAY, THE 3RD FEBRUARY 2009 / 14TH MAGHA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 7824 of 2008() ----------------------------- CRMP.3073/2008 of DISTRICT COURT, PALAKKAD (CRIME NO.471/2008 OF PALAKKAD TOWN SOUTH POLICE STATION) PETITIONERS/ACCUSED --------------------------------------- 1. YOGESH, S/O.KRISHNAN, AGED 29 YEARS VALIYAVEEDU HOUSE, THIRUVALATHUR P.O. KALLINGAL, PALAKKAD. 2. ALEX, S/O.JOHNY, AGED 26 YEARS, PALAYAPET, KOPPAM, PALAKKAD. 3. UDAYAN, S/O.RAKKAN, AGED 26 YEARS, PAZHAYA KALAM, WEST YAKKARA, PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.C.A.CHACKO SMT.C.M.CHARISMA SRI.N.A.SHAFEEK RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT -------------------------- THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTING S.I. OF POLICE, PALAKKAD TOWN SOUTH, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. M.S. BREEZ. SRI.JOHNSON MANAYANI FOR R2 THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K. HEMA, J. --------------------------------------------------- Bail Appl. No. 7824 of 2008 --------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 3rd day of February, 2009. ORDER Petition for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Sections 120B and 393 of Indian Penal Code. According to prosecution, first and second accused along with three other identifiable persons came in a car and robbed a bag containing Rs.4 lakhs, passports etc. on 5.9.2008. A crime was registered against them and petitioners are accused nos. 3 to 5. 3. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that petitioners are innocent of the allegations made. A direction was issued to petitioners during the pendency of this petition to report before the investigating officer and make themselves available for interrogation. Accordingly, they appeared before the investigating officer and they were interrogated. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that on interrogation, petitioners' involvement is revealed on questioning and de facto complainant identified petitioners and confession statement was also recorded and petitioners are required for recovery. This is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail, it is submitted. 5. Learned counsel for de facto complainant is also heard and he also opposed this bail application and pointed out [B.A.No.7824/08] 2 that de facto complainant is a travel agent who was having several passports in the bag and those have to be recovered through the petitioners. 6. On hearing both sides, I am satisfied that it is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. I am also satisfied that petitioners are required for custodial interrogation and recovery of the stolen articles. The incident happened as early as on 5.9.2008 and petitioners were not available for investigation. 1) Petitioners are directed to surrender before the investigating officer without any delay and co- operate with the investigation. Whether they surrender or not, police is at liberty to arrest them and proceed in accordance with law. 2) No further application for anticipatory bail by petitioners will be entertained in this crime by this Court, since this Court has already entered a finding that it is not fit to grant anticipatory bail, on appreciation of the facts and circumstances and hence, any finding to the contrary entered into in a subsequent application may amount to review, which is not permissible in law. Petition is dismissed. K. HEMA, JUDGE. Krs.