High Court Kerala High Court

Alexander Lucose vs State Of Kerala on 26 May, 2008

Kerala High Court
Alexander Lucose vs State Of Kerala on 26 May, 2008
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Bail Appl..No. 3167 of 2008()


1. ALEXANDER LUCOSE, S/O. LUCOSE,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.C.S.MANILAL

                For Respondent  :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

The Hon'ble MRS. Justice K.HEMA

 Dated :26/05/2008

 O R D E R
                              K.HEMA, J.

                  -----------------------------------------
                         B.A.No.3167 of 2008
                  -----------------------------------------

              Dated this the 26th day of May, 2008

                               O R D E R

This petition is for anticipatory bail.

2. According to prosecution, on 11.4.2008, one of the teak

poles belonging to the Electricity Board was stolen and it was

recovered from the courtyard of the house of the petitioner on the

next day. A complaint was lodged for offence of theft under Section

379 IPC and crime was registered on the basis of the statement

given by the Assistant Engineer of the Electricity Board.

3. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the petitioner is

totally innocent of the allegations made. He is a reputed

businessman running furniture business. He has nothing to do with

the crime. If at all the prosecution case is accepted, the offence can

only be a case of Section 411 IPC. Hence he may be granted

anticipatory bail, it is submitted.

4. This petition is opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor

submitted that other accused are involved in the crime and their

involvement has to be investigated into. Unless the petitioner is

arrested and interrogated, investigation cannot be effective. The

BA.3167/08 2

arrest and custodial interrogation of the petitioner are required for

an effective investigation, it is submitted. If the petitioner is

granted anticipatory bail, it will adversely affect the investigation. I

am satisfied with the submission made by learned Public Prosecutor

and I do not find that it is a fit case to grant anticipatory bail.

The petition is dismissed.

K.HEMA, JUDGE

vgs.