IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN MONDAY, THE 1ST FEBRUARY 2010 / 12TH MAGHA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 408 of 2010() ---------------------------- CRIME NO.684/2009 OF ETTUMANOOR POLICE STATION PETITIONER/ACCUSED -------------------------------------- K.KUNHUMON @ BALAKRISHNAN, S/O.THANKAPPAN, 48 YEARS OF AGE,THARAYIL NAMBERI COLONY, KOOTHATTUKULAM ,ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.MANUEL KACHIRAMATTAM SMT.MERRY GEORGE RESPONDENT(S): --------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.M.S.BREEZ THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. --------------------------------------------- B.A.No.408 of 2010 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 1st day of February, 2010 ORDER This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. The petitioner has not mentioned the crime number in the Bail Application. 3. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the petitioner is involved in Crime No.684 of 2009 of Ettumanoor Police Station and that he is the first accused therein. 4. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 457 and 380 of the Indian Penal Code. 5. The prosecution case is that on 9.11.2009, the accused persons committed theft of a bronze vessel from Moozhikulangara Bhagavathi temple. The vessel had a weight of 80 kg. It is alleged that the accused persons broke the vessel into pieces to enable them to conveniently transport the stolen article. They attempted to sell the bronze to a shopkeeper, who refused to receive the same. It is submitted that the autorickshaw driver, in whose autorickshaw the accused persons BA No.408/2010 2 travelled, has also stated the necessary details to the investigating officer. 6. The offence alleged against the petitioner is grave in nature. I am of the view that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner is not entitled to the discretionary relief under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required in the case. If anticipatory bail is granted to the petitioner, it would adversely affect the proper investigation of the case. For the aforesaid reasons, the Bail Application is dismissed. K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE csl