IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA FRIDAY, THE 7TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 16TH KARTHIKA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 5713 of 2008() ----------------------------- Cr.No. NOT REGISTERED BY THRISSUR TOWN EAST POLICE STATION PETITIONER ------------------------------ SOJAN JOHN, AGED 42 YEARS, S/O.KIZHAKKUMTHALA JOHN, KIZHAKKUMTHALA HOUSE, CHELLAMATTOM DESHAM, CHELLAMATTOM VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK, PERUMABAVOOR, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SMT.SANDHYA RAJU RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, THRISSUR. 3. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, THRISSUR TOWN EAST POLICE STATION, THRISSUR. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI.K.S.SIVAKUMAR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. ----------------------------------------- B.A.No. 5713 of 2008 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 7th November, 2008 O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Sections 379, 468, 413, 414 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. According to prosecution, accused 4 and 5 committed theft of several cars and those were given to first accused and first accused, with the help of accused 2 and 3, changed the chassis number, engine number and registration number and forged the RC book and get the car re- registered at Pune and then again re-registered at Kerala. 7th accused used to take certain cars in auction from the Insurance Company and he used to sell the engine to the first accused, who replaced the original engine by the engine supplied by the 7th accused. Then he altered chassis number and get the car re- registered in Pune and again get it re-registered in Kerala. In one case relating to a Maruti car, just like 7th accused, one Sajit Kumar had taken a vehicle in auction from the Insurance Company and sold the same to first accused under the agreement, in which 7th accused signed as a witness. Offences are committed in furtherance of a common intention by all the accused. All these facts were revealed when accused 1 to 3 were arrested on 11.6.2008 while 2 they were proceeding in a car which was stolen. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that petitioner has not committed any offence. He has been falsely implicated, on the basis of a confession statement made by the prime accused in the case. In the year 2005, a similar allegation was made against petitioner. But, on investigation, it was found that petitioner had not committed any offence and hence the crime was referred. In the present case, the only material available is the confession statement of a co-accused. Petitioner is likely to be remanded if he is arrested. It is also submitted that petitioner is engaged in buying damaged cars from the Insurance Company and he has not engaged in any illegal activities. The other allegations are all baseless and motivated. Hence, he may be granted anticipatory bail, it is submitted. 4. This petition is opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that 7th accused has a clear role in the crime and his role was revealed when accused 1 to 3 were arrested. Several cars are involved in the crime and the offences are committed with the knowledge of 7th accused. In an agreement executed in relation to a Maruti car, petitioner had signed. The matter is being investigated into and in such circumstances, if petitioner is granted anticipatory bail, it will adversely affect the investigation, it is submitted. 3 Considering the nature of offence and the modus operandi adopted for the commission offence, it is submitted that it is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. 5. On hearing both sides, I am satisfied of the submissions made by learned Public Prosecutor. In an offence of this nature, it is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail, especially since custodial interrogation of petitioner will be essential for revealing his involvement in the crime. Several facts which are within his exclusive knowledge will have to be ascertained and if anticipatory bail is granted, such possibility will be destroyed. Hence, I am least in granting anticipatory bail to petitioner. Crime was registered as early as on 11.6.2008 and five months have been lapsed and petitioner was not available for arrest and investigation. Petitioner is directed to surrender before the investigating officer and co-operate with the investigation without any delay. Whether he surrenders or not, police is at liberty to arrest him at any time. With this direction, petition is dismissed. K.HEMA, JUDGE vgs.