IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN WEDNESDAY, THE 24TH MARCH 2010 / 3RD CHAITHRA 1932 Bail Appl..No. 1231 of 2010 CRIME NO.346/CR/06 OF CBCID, PALAKKAD UNIT APPLICANT/A5 -------------------------------- AJAYAN, AGED 39 YEARS, S/O.KRISHNANKUTTY, MANAPPURATHUKKARAN HOUSE, MUPLIYAM DESOM, MUPLIYAM VILLAGE, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU SRI.VIPIN NARAYAN RESPONDENT: COMPLAINANT -------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. REPRESENTING THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT, CBCID PALAKKAD. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.V.TEKCHAND THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------ B.A. NO. 1231 OF 2010 ------------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 24th day of March, 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.5 in Crime No.346/CR/06 of CBCID, Palakkad Unit. 2. The offence alleged against the accused is under Section 394 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. T.M.R.Kutty, a Palmist, was staying in room No.101 of Elite Tourist Home, Guruvayur. The prosecution case is that on 27.3.2005 at 8 PM, the accused persons entered into the room of T.M.R.Kutty under the pretext that they desired to have a consultation with T.M.R.Kutty. It is alleged that the accused persons had beaten T.M.R.Kutty, who fell unconscious. It is further alleged that the accused persons stealthily took away 69 sovereigns of gold ornaments, one Rado watch, a Nikon camera and cash belonging to T.M.R.Kutty. B.A. NO. 1231 OF 2010 :: 2 :: 4. Originally, the crime was being investigated by Guruvayur Police as Crime No.137 of 2005. In 2007, the investigation was taken over by CBCID, Palakkad Unit. It is stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in 2009, CBCID, Palakkad Unit had filed a report before the court having jurisdiction in the case as 'undetected case'. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is innocent and that he is not involved in the offence. 5. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that on 3.2.2010, accused No.1 in the present case, namely, Viju @ Kuppikkannan Viju, was arrested by Thrissur West Police, on finding him in suspicious circumstances. He was questioned by the police. It was revealed by him that he was involved in the offence in the present case. It is stated that Viju @ Kuppikkannan Viju disclosed the complicity of the petitioner and the other accused as well, in the case. 6. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature and gravity of the offence and the allegations levelled against the accused, I do not think that this is a fit case B.A. NO. 1231 OF 2010 :: 3 :: where anticipatory bail can be granted to the petitioner. 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. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not think that the petitioner is entitled to the discretionary relief under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. For the aforesaid reasons, the Bail Application is dismissed. (K.T.SANKARAN) Judge ahz/