IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN THURSDAY, THE 8TH APRIL 2010 / 18TH CHAITHRA 1932 Bail Appl..No. 1956 of 2010() ----------------------------------- CRIME NO. 174/2010 0F RANNY POLICE STATION ...................... PETITIONER/ACCUSED : ----------------------------- JOJI MATHEW, AGED 25 YEARS, S/O.K.M.MATHEW, KOTTARATHU VADAKKEKKARA, KADAMANITTA P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA DIST. BY ADVS. SRI.M.T.SURESHKUMAR SRI.V.V.RAJA RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT: ---------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY SRI. M.S.BREEZ PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/04/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T. SANKARAN, J. --------------------------- B.A. No. 1956 of 2010 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 5th day of April, 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.174/2010 of Ranny Police Station. 2. The offence alleged against the petitioner is under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The prosecution case is the following: The petitioner is a night duty watchman of BSNL, Vayalathala Exchange. On 18.03.2010 at 11.30 P.M. one Rajan, who was walking along the side of the road in front of the Exchange found the petitioner removing cables and taking the same in an autorickshaw. Rajan informed the matter to the Junior Telecom Officer, who in turn deputed K.C. Sasi, a lineman to go to the spot and make a report. When Sasi reached the spot, the petitioner was not seen there. The petitioner came back to the premises only by about 1.15 A.M. The matter was reported to the Junior Telecom Officer. On 19.03.2010, the JTO and others made an B.A. No. 1956 of 2010 2 inspection. It was found that 561 metres, 767 meters, 199 metres and 379 metres of cables were found missing from four sealed drums. Likewise, 321 metres of cables were seen lost from another drum. F.I. Statement was lodged by the Sub Divisional Engineer of Ranni BSNL office, in which, it was stated that he suspected that the petitioner committed the offence. On the basis of the investigation so far conducted, the investigating officer was satisfied that the petitioner is involved in the case. When the petitioner was proposed to be arrested, he filed this application for anticipatory bail. 4. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature and gravity of the offence and the loss sustained by the Government(Rs. 82,856/-), I am of the view that this is not a fit case where anticipatory bail can be granted to the petitioner. For the purpose of investigation, 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