IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA MONDAY, THE 18TH AUGUST 2008 / 27TH SRAVANA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 4720 of 2008() ----------------------------- CRIME NUMBER NOT KNOWN PETITIONER --------------------------- MURALEEDHARAN NAIR.V., AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, S/O.VISHWAMBHARAN NAIR, AMBUJAM, KARAVASAM P.O., KALLAMBALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.P.V.ANIL RESPONDENT: ------------- THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE GOVT.PLEADER, HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.M.S.BREEZ THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K. HEMA, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - B.A.No. 4720 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 18th day of August, 2008 O R D E R Application for anticipatory bail. 2. According to prosecution, the bus involved in this case belongs to the defacto-complainant. It was purchased by one Shajahan and from him, by one Krishnakumar. Thereafter, it was purchased by the petitioner. The bus is now missing and a complaint is lodged by the defacto-complainant against the petitioner. According to the defacto-complainant, the persons who have purchased the bus did not pay off the instalments due to the financier but R.C. stands in the name of the defacto-complainant himself and hence the financier is now proceeding to take action against the defacto-complainant. The petitioner and others allegedly cheated the defacto-complainant and committed various offences and hence the complaint was lodged before the police, based on which, a crime is registered. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner has absolutely nothing to do with the bus. He was only a conductor. He joined another bus in 2008, since the entire dues were settled by Sri Krishnakumar and his services were terminated by the said Krishnakumar. There is absolutely no records to show that petitioner was the owner or that he was dealing with the bus as its owner. It is submitted that seven persons were closely connected with the bus and none of them, except the petitioner is now available in India and BA 4720/08 hence defacto-complainant and police have chosen to target petitioner only. It is pointed out that for running the bus, driver, conductor, cleaner and other staffs are necessary, but no enquiry is conducted about those people by the police. It is also pointed out that the vehicle had theft insurance and it has lot of liabilities also and hence the present attempt of the defacto-complainant is only to claim the insurance by making a false case against the petitioner. 4. The application is opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the petitioner is required for custodial interrogation. According to the defacto-complainant, the bus was purchased by the petitioner from Krishnakumar and hence he is the person who is liable to pay the hire purchase instalments. Documents relating to the bus were recovered and the bus is also found missing now. 6. On hearing both sides, it appears that there may be several facts which are within the exclusive knowledge of the petitioner which will be helpful for investigation. The petitioner will therefore be required for interrogation and it may not be proper to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. As a person closely connected bus, he may have much of information to be conveyed to the police. The application is dismissed. K. HEMA, JUDGE. mn.