IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN TUESDAY, THE 2ND FEBRUARY 2010 / 13TH MAGHA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 7708 of 2009 CRIME NO.401 OF 2009 OF PIRAVAM POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. PETITIONER ------------------------------ THAFSEER MUNEER, AGED 24 YEARS, S/O SAINULABDEEN, CHAMARETH PARAMBU, KALLADY HOUSE, ASOK ROAD, KALOOR, KOCHI-17. BY ADV. SRI.THOMAS ABRAHAM SRI.DIPU.R RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PIRAVOM POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.M.S.BREEZ THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------ B.A. NO. 7708 OF 2009 ------------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 2nd day of February, 2010 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.401 of 2009 of Piravam Police Station. 2. The offence alleged against the petitioner is under Section 379 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The prosecution case is that between 10 PM on 13.6.2009 and 6 AM on 14.6.2009, the accused persons committed theft of the motor bike belonging to the de facto complainant. 4. It is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that the petitioner is involved in another case for the offence under the Copy Right Act. 5. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature and gravity of the offence and the allegations B.A. NO. 7708 OF 2009 :: 2 :: levelled against the petitioner, I do not think that this is a fit case where anticipatory bail can be granted to the petitioner. Custodial interrogation of the petitioner may be required in the case. If anticipatory bail is granted to the petitioner, it would adversely affect the proper 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 ahz/