IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA WEDNESDAY, THE 18TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 29TH MAGHA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 747 of 2009() ---------------------------- CRMP.353/2009 of DISTRICT COURT, PALAKKAD .................... (CRIME NO.28/2009 OF TOWN SOUTH POLICE STATION, PALAKKAD DISTRICT) PETITIONER ------------------------------ SREENIVASAN, AGED 42 YEARS S/O.MADHAVAN, PANDARAKKAVU, MANAPPULLIKAVU, PALAKKAD TALUK & DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.NIREESH MATHEW RESPONDENT(S): --------------- STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, TOWAN SOUTH POLICE STATION, PALAKKAD, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.K.S. SIVAKUMAR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K. HEMA, J. --------------------------------------------------- Bail Appl. No. 747 of 2009 --------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 18th day of February, 2009. ORDER Petition for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under sections are under sections 454, 380 read with section 34 of IPC. According to prosecution, on 12.1.2009 when the de facto complainant came to the company run by him, he saw accused 1 and 2 running away taking a part of revolving motor. While so, the first accused fell down and he was arrested from the spot. The 2nd accused escaped. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that petitioner is innocent of the allegations made. No theft was actually committed even as per the admitted case of prosecution. The first information statement will not show that the article was taken away. It was only removed and kept in the premise itself. It is also submitted that Petitioner who is not involved in the incident and his name is not mentioned in the F.I.R. If the [B.A.No.747/2009] 2 prosecution case is true, there is no reason why petitioner is not implicated as per the F.I.R. Itself. The incident occurred at 4 .30 p.m. and the first accused was arrested from the spot and he had allegedly given information regarding the involvement of 2nd accused and if that be so, it is not explained why the F.I.R. registered at 7 p.m. Petitioner's name is not implicated. Therefore, petitioner may be granted anticipatory bail, it is submitted. 4. This petition is opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that after the arrest of first accused, on investigation, it is revealed that this is not the first instance of theft. Petitioner and first accused had committed theft earlier also from the same site. Though the name of petitioner is not mentioned in the F.I.R., his involvement is clearly revealed from the allegations made in the F.I.R. It is specifically mentioned that two person were involved. The F.I.R. is based on the statement given by de facto complainant and not by first accused. Therefore, omission in implicating 2nd accused is not vital, it is submitted. 5. On hearing both sides, considering the serious nature of allegations made, I am satisfied that it is not a fit case [B.A.No.747/2009] 3 to grant anticipatory bail, especially since, it is alleged that petitioner was involved in similar offence earlier also and he may be required for interrogation. Petitioner is bound to surrender. Hence, the following order is passed: 1) Petitioner shall surrender before the investigating officer without delay and co- operate with the investigation. Whether he surrenders or not, the police is at liberty to arrest him at any time. 2) No further application for anticipatory bail by the petitioner in this crime will be entertained by this Court. Petition is dismissed. K. HEMA, JUDGE. Krs.