IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN WEDNESDAY, THE 20TH JANUARY 2010 / 30TH POUSHA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 7536 of 2009() ---------------------------------------- CRIME NO.186/2009 OF VELLARADA POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. .................. APPLICANT/4TH ACCUSED --------------------------------------- RAJESH, S/O. RAGHAVAN, KARUMARAM PATHU CENT, HOUSE N0. X/177, KARAKODE, VELLARADA VILLAGE. BY ADV. MR.PIRAPPANCODE V.S.SUDHIR RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT ------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM (SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VELLARADA POLICE STATION). BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR.M.S. BREEZ THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/01/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: rs. K.T. SANKARAN, J. --------------------------- B.A. No. 7536 of 2009 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 20th day of January, 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 accused No.4 in Crime No.186/2009 of Vellerada Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 379 and 411 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The prosecution case is that during the early hours of 25/6/2009, a Sandal Wood tree standing in the compound of the de facto complainant was stolen. According to the de facto complainant, the value of the Sandal Wood tree would come to Rs.20,000/-. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is nothing to connect the petitioner with the offence and he is implicated in the case without any material. 5. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that there are enough materials in the case to implicate the petitioner as an accused. Accused Nos. 6 and 13 were arrested and on the basis B.A. No. 7536/2009 2 of the confession statement made by them, recovery of a portion of the Sandal Wood timber was made. It is also submitted that the statements made by several other accused and also accused Nos. 6 and 13 would show that the petitioner is also involved in the case. At this stage of investigation, it is not necessary to decide whether the materials collected would be sufficient for arriving at a conclusion that the petitioner is guilty. That is a matter to be considered at the time of trial. During the course of investigation, any material can be relied on, which would throw light to the complicity of a person in athe offence. There are enough materials on record to come to the conclusion, prima facie, that the petitioner is also involved in the offence. 6. In an offence of this nature, it is not proper to grant the discretionary relief under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Custodial interrogation of the petitioner would be required during the investigation. 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 scm