IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT THURSDAY, THE 3RD JANUARY 2008 / 13TH POUSHA 1929 Bail Appl..No. 8087 of 2007() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.893/07 OF MANJERI POLICE STATION .................... PETITIONER/1ST ACCUSED --------------------------------------- SUNIL KUMAR, S/O.UNNICHUNDAN, THUVAKKAD HOUSE, PAYYANAD.P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.SAMSUDIN RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT ----------------------------------- THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MANJERI, THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. JAI GEORGE. THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. ------------------------------------------------- B.A. No. 8087 OF 2007 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 3rd day of January, 2008 ORDER Application for anticipatory bail. The petitioner is 1st accused. Altogether, there are 3 accused persons. They face allegations in a crime registered under Sec.420 read with Sec.34 of the IPC. The crux of the allegations against the accused persons – 3 in number, is that they fraudulently induced the de facto complainant to deliver a vehicle of which he is the registered owner to them. The vehicle was taken with the plea that they wanted to have a test run of the vehicle which was offered for sale. The accused persons went away with the vehicle; but did not return the same. Though it was said that the vehicle can be sold and the consideration shall be paid to the de facto complainant, neither was the vehicle returned nor was sale consideration paid. The vehicle is not B.A. No. 8087 OF 2007 -: 2 :- now traceable. The 2nd and 3rd accused have already been arrested and enlarged on bail. Their interrogation has not helped the police to trace the vehicle. According to them, it is alleged that the vehicle was in the possession of the 1st accused who, in turn, had handed it over to some one else. The vehicle still remains untraced. Investigation is in progress. The petitioner apprehends imminent arrest. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is absolutely innocent. The petitioner is only a vehicle broker. Advance amount has been paid to the de facto complainant also. The petitioner is not in possession of the vehicle and he has no responsibility for the vehicle now. It is accused 2 and 3 who, according to the petitioner, had taken away the vehicle. In these circumstances, it is prayed that anticipatory bail may be granted to the petitioner. The petitioner shall co-operate with the Investigator, it is assured by the learned counsel. 3. The learned Public Prosecutor opposes the application. The learned Public Prosecutor submits that the vehicle of which B.A. No. 8087 OF 2007 -: 3 :- the de facto complainant is the registered owner remains untraced even now. The petitioner has not offered any explanation as to whom the vehicle has been sold also. In these circumstances, the petitioner has to be interrogated in an attempt to trace and recover the vehicle. Permitting the petitioner to arm himself with an order of anticipatory bail would hamper the smooth course of investigation. In these circumstances, it is prayed that anticipatory bail may not be granted to the petitioner. 4. I have considered all the relevant inputs. The Case Diary has been placed before me by the learned Public Prosecutor. Having considered all the relevant circumstances, I find merit in the opposition by the learned Public Prosecutor. I find no features available in this case which can persuade this Court to permit the petitioner to arm himself with an order of anticipatory bail. This, I am satisfied, is a fit case where the Investigator must be given an opportunity to interrogate the petitioner in custody and make attempts to trace the vehicle. 5. In the result, this bail application is dismissed; but with B.A. No. 8087 OF 2007 -: 4 :- the observation that if the petitioner surrenders before the learned Magistrate and seeks bail, after giving sufficient prior notice to the Prosecutor in charge of the case, the learned Magistrate must proceed to pass appropriate orders on merits and expeditiously. Sd/- (R. BASANT, JUDGE) Nan/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge