IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN THURSDAY, THE 4TH MARCH 2010 / 13TH PHALGUNA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 7018 of 2009() ---------------------------------- CRIME NO. 924/2009 OF CHERTHALA POLICE STATION ....................... PETITIONER/ACCUSED : ----------------------------- JAYACHANDRAN, S/O.THANKAPPAN, VADAKKEKARIYIL HOUSE, KOZHAKKUMURI, VARANADU P.O., CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.BABU S. NAIR RESPONDENT/STATE : ------------------------- THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CHERTHALA POLICE STATION - THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-31. BY SRI. M.S.BREEZ PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T. SANKARAN, J. --------------------------- B.A. No. 7018 of 2009 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 4th 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 petitioner is the accused in Crime No.924/2009 of Cherthala Police Station, Alappuzha District. 2. The offence alleged against the petitioner is under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The case was registered on the basis of the information given by the Additional Tahsildar, Cherthala to Circle Inspector of Police, Cherthala. The Additional Tahsildar stated in the petition that on 26.10.2009, under the leadership of the Revenue Divisional Officer, a quantity of about 55 lorry loads of sand unauthorisedly mined and stored in the property of one Dinesan were seized. Later, on 31.12.2009, it was found that about half of the quantity of the sand was removed. During investigation, it was revealed that the petitioner had removed the sand. B.A. No. 7018 /2009 2 4. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not think that this is a fit case where anticipatory bail can be granted in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner is not entitled to any discretionary relief under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 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. For the aforesaid reasons, the Bail Application is dismissed. K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE ln