IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA MONDAY, THE 17TH MAY 2010 / 27TH VAISAKHA 1932 Bail Appl..No. 1568 of 2010() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.299/2010 OF VARKALA POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS.1 AND 2: ------------------------------------------- 1. ABDUL SHAJAR ,ARAYALUVILA VEEDU KURAKANNI,VARKALA. 2. MUHAJIRI, S/O.MADUL GAFOOR NAJITHA MANZIL (VILAYIL) MAITHANAM, VARKALA. BY ADV. SRI.B.S.SWATHY KUMAR SMT.P.A.ANITHA RESPONDENT: --------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKUALM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. M.S BREEZ THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K. HEMA,J ---------------------- B.A.No.1568 OF 2010 ----------------------------------- Dated this the 17th day of May , 2010 O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. Alleged offences are under sections.427, 457, 380 r/w 34 IPC. According to prosecution, petitioners are alleged to have tress passed a the restaurant conducted by defacto complainant and committed theft of certain articles, on 24.2. 2010, after obtaining exparte injunction order. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner argued that restaurant belonged to the petitioners' father and after his death, it devolved upon the petitioners. The restaurant was given on lease to one Gopinath, while the petitioner's father was alive. After the death of Gopinath, his legal representatives tried to induct defacto complainant into the premises of the restaurant, and petitioners obtained an order of injunction from the Munsiff Court, against such B.A.1568/10 2 induction, on 24.2.1010. A complaint was lodged by defacto complainant before Magistrate court alleging that on the same day on 24.2.2010, petitioners tress passed into the property and committed theft of various articles etc. 4. Learned public prosecutor submitted that under the cover of an injunction order, the offences were committed. Out of the articles allegedly removed, a billing machine is yet to be recovered. The other articles were found near the premises of the restaurant and those were seized. This is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail, it is submitted. 5. On hearing both sides, it appears that the alleged stolen article is yet to be recovered. Petitioners are the sole accused. They would be required for the recovery of alleged stolen article and investigation. Hence it is not proper to grant anticipatory bail in case of this nature. The incident allegedly happened as early as on 24.2.2010 and about 2½ months have elapsed. For the purpose of recovery of alleged stolen article, the presence of the petitioners would be required. Hence, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory B.A.1568/10 3 bail as it is likely to affect investigation adversely. 6. Hence the following order is passed: Petitioner shall surrender before the investigation officer or Magistrate court concerned within one week from today and co- operate with the investigation. This petition is dismissed. K. HEMA, JUDGE. Sou.