IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN THURSDAY, THE 15TH OCTOBER 2009 / 23RD ASWINA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 5752 of 2009() --------------------------------------- CRIME NO.1435/2009 OF ERNAKULAM NORTH POLICE STATION. .................... PETITIONER/ACCUSED: --------------------------------------- MANESH, S/O.MOHANAN, AGED 27 YEARS NADUTHURITHIL HOUSE, PANAGADU PO KUMBALAM VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.ALEXANDER GEORGE RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT: ------------------------------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM. 2. THE CIRLCE INSPECTOR OF POLICE ERNAKULAM NORTH POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM. SRI. M.S.BREEZ, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/10/2009, ALONG WITH BA NO. 5698 OF 2009 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T. SANKARAN, J. --------------------------- B.A. Nos. 5752 & 5698 of 2009 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 15th day of October, 2009 O R D E R These are Bail Applications filed respectively by Shibu, S/o.Thankkappan (accused No. 5) and Manesh, S/o. Mohanan (accused No.7) in Crime No.1435/2009 of Ernakulam North Police Station. 2. The offences alleged against the accused persons, 14 in number, are under Sections 120B, 395 and 412 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The gist of the prosecution case is the following: One Saifudeen, who was running Wholesale Ready Made Business in Market Road, Ernakulam, entrusted with his employee Shahid a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- for entrusting the same to another employee, Ibrahim. Saifudeen asked Ibrahim to take the money and hand over the same to a person at Kodungallur. Shahid brought the money to the residence of Ibrahim near the mosque at Kaloor. He entrusted the amount to Ibrahim. Shahid and Ibrahim proceeded to the Bus Stand so that B.A. Nos. 5752 & 5698 / 2009 2 Ibrahim could go to Kodungallur. While they were riding on the motor bike, two persons tried to snatch the bag from the possession of Ibrahim. Shahid and Ibrahim fell down. Ibrahim tried to escape with the bag so that money could be salvaged. The other accused, who came on several motor bikes chased him and took away the money. The incident occurred on 5/12/2008. 4. It is quite strange that the matter was not reported to the police. In connection with another crime, the first accused herein was arrested. In the confession statement allegedly made by the first accused, it is stated that he disclosed about the offence committed by him and others in the present case. Accordingly, the present crime, namely, Crime No.1435/2009 was registered by Ernakulam North Police Station. The petitioners, who are accused Nos. 5 and 7 apprehend arrest. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that there is no material to connect the petitioners with the crime. Had Rs.10,00,000/- been lost by Saifudeen or by Ibrahim, they would have certainly reported the matter to the police. In respect of the offence allegedly committed on 5/12/2008, the crime is B.A. Nos. 5752 & 5698 / 2009 3 registered only on 31/7/2009. The 5th accused moved for anticipatory bail before the learned Sessions Judge. That application was dismissed by the order dated 19/9/2009. 6. After having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor and also perusing the CD file, I am not inclined to accept the contention of the petitioners that no case is made out against them. The investigation is at the initial stage. As rightly pointed out by the learned Session Judge, custodial interrogation of the accused persons may become necessary in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. Though it is strange that loss of a huge sum of Rs.10,00,000/- was not reported by Saifudeen or by Ibrahim to the police, that is not a ground to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners herein. In what circumstances the matter was not reported to the police is also a matter to be considered by the investigating officer. 7. If the petitioners are granted anticipatory bail, it would adversely affect the smooth and proper investigation of the case. Custodial interrogation is necessary in the case. In the B.A. Nos. 5752 & 5698 / 2009 4 nature of the allegations made against the petitioners, I do not think that the petitioners are entitled to the discretionary relief under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. For the aforesaid reasons, these Bail Applications are dismissed. K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE scm