IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN TUESDAY, THE 17TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 26TH KARTHIKA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 4024 of 2009() ------------------------------------ CRIME NO. 107/2009 OF PEECHI POLICE STATION .................... PETITIONER/ACCUSED: ---------------------------------- PRAMOD, AGED 28, S/O. PRAKASHAN, ALAYIL HOUSE, PAZHAMBALLAM, P.O.MARATHAKKARA, MARATHAKKARA VILLAGE, OLLUR TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.VARGHESE C.KURIAKOSE SRI.PRAVEEN K. JOY SRI.ADEEP ANWAR RESPONDENTS: ---------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, OLLUR POLICE CIRCLE, OLLUR. BY SRI. P.A. SALIM PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T. SANKARAN, J. --------------------------- B.A. No. 4024 of 2009 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 17th day of November, 2009 O R D E R This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner is accused No.2 in Crime No.107/2009 of Peechi Police Station. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 395 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The prosecution case is the following: On 12.03.2009 at 5.50 P.M., the first accused was driving a pick up van bearing Registration No. KL08 AJ 5953 from Thrissur to Palakkad. There was another person in the vehicle, who was carrying a sum of Rs. 30,62,425/- and the prized lottery tickets worth Rs.1,32,500/-. The driver as well as the other person were employees of a lottery agency. On every Thursday, money and tickets were being taken from the office of the Lottery Agency at Thrissur to its office at Palakkad. When the vehicle reached a place called Kallidukku, one motor bike and a WagonR car overtook the pick up van and tried to B.A. No. 4024 of 2009 2 intercept the pick up van. Chilly Power was sprinkled on the face of the driver of the pick up van. He lost control. At that time, the persons who came on the motor bike and in the car took away the money and the prized tickets from the possession of the person, who was travelling in the pick up van. The culprits left the place on the bike and in the car. The police was informed. They intercepted the car and recovered the money. The persons found in the car were arrested. 4. The investigation revealed that the driver of the vehicle had hatched a conspiracy with the second accused to take the amount and lottery tickets, when the money was being taken in the vehicle to Palakkad. It was revealed in the investigation that the driver of the pick up van was playing a drama that he was also attacked by the culprits. Really, he was also a party to the conspiracy. Investigation also revealed that accused No.2 hired the services of accused No.3 onwards, who are allegedly professionals in criminal activities. B.A. No. 4024 of 2009 3 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is no material to connect the petitioner with the offence. It is submitted that petitioner is a young politician and he is deliberately made an accused to spoil his political career. 6. I have gone through the Case Diary. I am of the view that, prima facie, there are materials to connect the petitioner with the offence. The prosecution case is that the second accused, who is the petitioner herein, is the master mind in the whole episode and that he arranged other accused persons for the commission of the offence. It has also come out that the petitioner had close contact with the driver of the pick up van. It has also come out in the investigation that the second accused had planned to commit the offence in the previous week but due to circumstances beyond control, the accused persons could not execute their plan. 7. The learned Sessions Judge considered the facts and circumstances of the case and held that the petitioner is not B.A. No. 4024 of 2009 4 entitled to the discretionary relief under Section 438 of the code of Criminal Procedure. On a consideration of the entire facts and circumstances of the case, I concur with the view taken by the learned Sessions Judge. 8. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, custodial interrogation of the petitioner may be required. If the petitioner is granted Anticipatory Bail, it would adversely affect the proper and smooth investigation of the case. I am of the view that the petitioner is 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 ln