IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN TUESDAY, THE 2ND MARCH 2010 / 11TH PHALGUNA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 6180 of 2009 CRIME NO.383 OF 2009 OF ERUMELI POLICE STATION, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT PETITIONERS/ACCUSED --------------------------------------- 1. P.M.ANSARI, AGED 47 YEARS, S/O.LATE MOIDEEN RAWTHER, VETTIYANIKAL HOUSE, ERUMELI P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 2. P.M.NAZIRUDDIN, AGED 50 YEARS, S/O.LATE MOIDEEN RAWTHER, VETTIYANIKAL HOUSE, ERUMELI P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 3. NASAR, AGED 48 YEARS, S/O.IBRAHIM, KOZHIYANTHANAM, PALAMPRA P.O., MUKKALI, PARATHODE, (VIA) KANJIRAPPILLY. BY ADV. SRI.ESM.KABEER RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ERUMELI POLICE STATION. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.M.S.BREEZ THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------ B.A. NO. 6180 OF 2009 ------------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 2nd day of March, 2010 O R D E R This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioners are the accused persons in Crime No.383 of 2009 of Erumeli Police Station, Kottayam District. 2. The offence alleged against the petitioners is under Section 379 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The prosecution case is that on 14.10.2009 at 8.45 PM, the accused persons committed theft of rubber latex belonging to the de facto complainant which was stored in a rubber estate. It is alleged that five jars of rubber latex, each containing 35 litres, were stolen and taken away in a car which was taken by the accused from a rent a car concern. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that there is no material to connect the petitioners with the offence. I have B.A. NO. 6180 OF 2009 :: 2 :: gone through the case diary. Prima facie, I am not inclined to accept the contention put forward by the petitioners. There are materials, prima facie, to indicate that the petitioners are also involved in the case. 5. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that this is not a fit case where anticipatory bail can be granted to the petitioners. If anticipatory bail is granted to the petitioners, it would adversely affect the proper investigation of the case. I am of the view that the petitioners are not entitled to the discretionary relief under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. For the aforesaid reasons, the Bail Application is dismissed. (K.T.SANKARAN) Judge ahz/