IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN FRIDAY, THE 29TH JULY 2011 / 7TH SRAVANA 1933 Bail Appl..No. 5577 of 2011() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.297 OF 2011 OF VIZHINJAM POLICE STATION ----------------------- PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.5 ------------------------------------------ NOOHU, KAPPACHAL VEEDU, VIZHINJAM, VIZHINJAM.P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.G.P.SHINOD SRI.RAM MOHAN.G. RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT STATE AND INVESTIGATING OFFICER ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VIZHINJAM POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR.TEKCHAND THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: dmb K.T.SANKARAN, J. --------------------------------- B.A. No. 5577 OF 2011 --------------------------------- Dated this the 29th day of July, 2011 ORDER This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Petitioner is accused No.5 in Crime No.297 of 2011 of the Vizhinjam Police Station. 2. The offence alleged against the petitioner is under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The prosecution case is that on 24.4.2011, while the defacto complainant and family members were at Vizhinjam harbour in their car, the accused surrounded the vehicle and snatched a gold chain weighing 3 sovereigns of gold belonging to the defacto complainant. The matter was immediately reported to the police and the crime was registered at 00.30 hours on 25.4.2011. The crime was registered under Section 379 read with 34 of the Indian B.A. No. 5577 OF 2011 2 Penal Code, since it was stated in the first information statement that two persons were involved. On the next day, the defacto complainant made a statement as to the involvement of other persons also who are identifiable. Accordingly, the crime was altered as one under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code. 4. The allegations levelled against the accused are grave in nature. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that recovery of the gold chain has not been effected. In a case of this nature, I do not think that the petitioner is entitled to the discretionary relief under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 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. cms