IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN THURSDAY, THE 21ST JANUARY 2010 / 1ST MAGHA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 3297 of 2009() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.289/09 OF VENJARAMOODU POLICE STATION PETITIONER : ACCUSED ------------------------------ SHIYAS MUHAMMED, FATHIMA MANZIL, KURUMBAYAM, KALLARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.SOORAJ T.ELENJICKAL RESPONDENT(S): --------------- THE STATE OF KERALA THROUGH SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VENJARAMOODU POLICE, STATION, REP.BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.TEKCHAND THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. --------------------------------------------- B.A.No.3297 of 2009 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 21st day of January, 2010 ORDER This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner is the accused in Crime No.289 of 2009 of Venjaramoodu Police Station. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 457 and 392 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The prosecution case is that on 27.4.2009, at 7.30 P.M., when the de facto complainant entered into a room of her house, the accused caught hold of her and snatched the gold chain belonging to the de facto complainant. The de facto complainant resisted. However, the accused could snatch a portion of the chain and he ran away. It is alleged that the accused was keeping himself concealed in the room waiting for the de facto complainant to enter into the room from the varandha. The accused is a neighbour of the de facto complainant. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the FIR was registered only on 9.5.2009 and therefore, the case BA No.3297/2009 2 of the prosecution cannot be believed. In the FI statement itself, mention is made about the attempts made to settle the disputes, since the accused is a neighbour of the de facto complainant. The question whether the delay in lodging the FIR is material, in the facts and circumstances, need not be decided while disposing of this Bail Application. If a finding is arrived at on that question, prejudice would be caused either to prosecution or to the defence. For the disposal of this Bail Application, a decision on that point is not necessary also. 5. The allegation levelled against the petitioner is grave in nature. Custodial interrogation of the petitioner may be required during investigation. If anticipatory bail is granted to the petitioner, it would adversely affect the proper investigation of the case. In the facts and circumstances 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 csl