IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN TUESDAY, THE 4TH AUGUST 2009 / 13TH SRAVANA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 4070 of 2009() ------------------------------------------- CRMP.5565/2009 of J.M.F.C.-II,ATTINGAL CRIME NO.324/2009 OF KAZHAKOOTTAM POLICE STATION. .................... PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.6: ------------------------------------------- SHIHAB, S/O.KUNHU BAVA, PACHUVEEDU HOUSE, AYYAPPANKAVU, MULAYAM VILLAGE, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.BABU S. NAIR RESPONDENT/STATE: ----------------------------- THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KAZHAKOOTTAM-THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-31. SRI. M.S. BREEZ, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/08/2009, ALONG WITH BA NO. 4071 OF 2009, BA NO. 4073 OF 2009 , BA NO. 4074 OF 2009 AND BA NO. 4076 OF 2009 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T. SANKARAN, J. --------------------------- B.A. Nos.4070, 4071, 4073, 4074 and 4076 of 2009 --------------------------------- Dated this the 4th day of August, 2009 O R D E R These five Bail Applications are filed by Shihab, one of the accused persons in all the cases. The offences alleged against the petitioner and other accused are under Sections 379, 465, 468 and 471 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. Salahudheen, the first accused in all the cases, was arrested by Kazhakoottam Police under Section 41(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, on 30/06/2009. He was questioned by the Police. It would appear that Salahudheen gave a disclosure statement, in which he stated that he along with certain others committed the theft of Maruti Vehicles from different places like vazhikadavu, kazhakoottam, Nilamboor, Gudallur, Payyoli etc. He also stated that those vehicles were taken to the workshop at Manjeri, owned by Shihab, the petitioner. It is stated that in that workshop, either damaged or destroyed vehicles or the vehicles which met with accidents would be available. The Engine Number and Chassis Number of those vehicles would be embossed on the stolen vehicles and those vehicles would be sold to several B.A. Nos.4070/2009 and connected cases Page numbers persons. He also stated that theft itself would be on the basis of the availability of damaged or destroyed vehicles in the workshop. Vehicles of similar make and model would be stolen so that it would be easier for substituting the Engine number and Chassis number of that of the damaged vehicles. It is also stated that the registration certificate of the damaged vehicles would be used for the sale of stolen vehicles, on which Engine numbers and Chassis numbers were changed. 3. On investigation of the crime registered by Kazhakoottam Police, it was revealed that in respect of theft of the vehicles from different places, crimes were registered at the respective police stations. 4. For easy reference, a tabular statement of different crimes, the rank of the petitioner and other details is shown below. Sl. Nos. B.A. Nos. Crime No. at Kazhakoottam Police Station Crime No. at different Police Stations Rank of the Petitioner Whether recovery effected or not 1 4070/2009 324/2009 638/2006 of Manjery Police Station. A6 Recovery effected. 2 4074/2009 326/2009 214/2007 of Payyoli Police Station. A5 Recovery not effected. B.A. Nos.4070/2009 and connected cases Page numbers 3 4076/2009 328/2009 596/2007 of Nilambur Police Station A4 Recovery not effected. 4 4071/2009 327/2009 71/2007 of Vazhikadavu Police Station A4 Recovery not effected. 5 4073/2009 325/2009 20/2007 of Vazhikadavu Police Station. A3 Recovery effected. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in respect of the crimes registered by Vazhikadavu Police Station and Nilambur Police Station, the first accused Salahudheen was released on bail. This statement was disputed by the learned Public Prosecutor, who stated that the first accused is still in jail and that he was not released in many of the crimes including those crimes registered by Vazhakadavu Police Station and Nilambur Police Station. Any how, these disputed questions need not be considered for disposal of these Bail Applications, as the release or otherwise of the first accused may not be quite relevant for considering the question whether the petitioner is entitled to be released on bail. 6. Sri. Babu S. Nair, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner hails from a respectable family. The B.A. Nos.4070/2009 and connected cases Page numbers petitioner is an Automobile Engineer and he runs workshops at Thrissur, Calicut and Manjeri. It is stated that the petitioner runs Automobile Spare Parts Shops at Thrissur and Calicut. The counsel submitted that in the workshop at Manjeri, the petitioner has employed a manager and eight other employees. The petitioner would go to the workshop at Manjeri only once in a fortnight. The petitioner was not aware of the malpractices, if any, done in the workshop. It is submitted that the manager of the workshop has left the place and he is not in service now. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the investigating officer, namely, the Circle Insepctor of Police, Kazhakootam came to Manjeri and summoned the petitioner to appear before him on 30/06/2009. Immediately, the petitioner responded and he met the Circle Inspector of Police. It is stated by the counsel that the Circle Inspector of Police demanded a huge amount as bribery and as the petitioner was not willing to pay the amount, he was implicated as an accused in all the cases. It is not stated whether the petitioner has made any complaint to the higher authorities or before any court in respect of such a demand for B.A. Nos.4070/2009 and connected cases Page numbers bribery. 8.The learned Public Prosecutors, Sri.Breez and Sri.Tekchand, opposed the Bail Applications vehemently. They contended that these are well organized and well planned crimes, in which several persons are involved. The vehicles involved in accidents or other damaged vehicles would be replaced by stolen vehicles. According to the Public Prosecutors, the petitioner was actively involved in the offences. 9. The investigation of the case is not completed. It is submitted that though the theft were committed in 2006, 2007 and 2008, police could not arrest any person in connection with the crimes. The crime numbers at the respective police stations were traced out after the first accused was arrested by Kazhakoottom Police under Section 41(i)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 10. Recovery of the vehicles have not been effected in all the cases. The investigation has to go a long way. It is submitted that if the petitioner is released on bail at this stage, it would seriously affect the smooth and proper investigation of the case. It is submitted that the petitioner is a highly influential person and if he B.A. Nos.4070/2009 and connected cases Page numbers is released on bail, he will be able to influence or intimidate the witnesses. 11. Taking into account all the relevant facts and circumstances of the case, I do not think that it is proper to release the petitioner on bail at this stage, though he was arrested in respect of the crime registered by Kazhakoottom Police on 30/06/2009 and though his formal arrest was recorded in the respective cases subsequently. These Bail Applications are accordingly dismissed. K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE scm