IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA THURSDAY, THE 12TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 23RD MAGHA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 7243 of 2008() ------------------------------------------ (CRIME N.521/2008 OF THE MUKKOM POLICE STATION) PETITIONER/ ACCUSED: --------------------------------------- BIJEESH @ SAJI, S/O.DEVASSIA, PERUMATTIKUNNUMMAL HOUSE, IRUVETTY, KAVANOOR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.BABU S. NAIR RESPONDENT(S): STATE: ----------------------------------------- THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MUKKOM POLICE STATION-THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-31. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR. K.S.SIVAKUMAR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/02/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss K. HEMA, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= B.A. No. 7243 of 2008 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this the 12th day of February, 2009 O R D E R Petition for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under sections 225B and 379 IPC. According to prosecution, on 10-11-2008 the Sub Inspector intercepted a vehicle driven by petitioner and it was taken to the police station. Thereafter, it was taken away by the accused from the police station without permission and thereby they committed the offences. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that petitioner has not committed any offence. In fact, petitioner was having pass to take the sand but on the way, the A.S.I. intercepted the vehicle and when the pass was shown, he was asked to take the vehicle to the police station and it was taken to the police station. The A.S.I. demanded illegal gratification and petitioner was told by the A.S.I. that he can take the vehicle and unload the sand and bring back the same. Petitioner was not willing to give illegal gratification and later crime was registered against petitioner making false allegations. On the next day. petitioner contacted the Sub Inspector over phone and the conversation was tape recorded, which will prove his innocence, it is submitted. The C.D. was also handed over to learned Public BA 7243/08 -2- Prosecutor. 4. This petition is opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that as per the allegations made in the complaint, petitioner had taken away the vehicle from the custody of the police, without permission. Such action amounts to offences alleged and this is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. It is also pointed out that the tape recorded version handed over to learned Public Prosecutor will reveal that the case was registered only on the basis of true facts, which actually transpired. This is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. It is submitted. 5. On hearing both sides,, considering the nature of the allegations made, I am satisfied that this is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. Taking away a lorry, which was seized by the police, from the custody of the police without permission is a serious matter and I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail. Petitioner is required for interrogation and he is bound to surrender before the police and co-operate with the investigation. Hence, the following order is passed:- 1) Petitioner is directed to surrender before the Investigating Officer without any delay and co- BA 7243/08 -3- operate with the investigation. Whether he surrenders or not, police is at liberty to arrest him and proceed in accordance with law. 2) No further application for anticipatory bail by petitioner in this crime will be entertained by this Court, since on the facts in this case, this Court ordered that this is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail and any order to the contrary in any subsequent anticipatory bail application will amount to review, which is impermissible in law. The petition is dismissed. K.HEMA, JUDGE. mn.