IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Bail Appl..No. 5091 of 2008()
1. MAJEED, S/O.MAIDEEN, AGED 38 YEARS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTING S.H.O.
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.P.V.ELIAS
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MRS. Justice K.HEMA
Dated :14/08/2008
O R D E R
K. HEMA, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
B.A.No. 5091 of 2008
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 14th day of August, 2008
O R D E R
Application for anticipatory bail.
2. This is the second attempt to get anticipatory bail from this
Court. Petitioner is the 3rd accused. The alleged offences are under
sections 379, 411 read with section 34 IPC. According to
prosecution, 1st and 2nd accused committed theft of 16 barrels of tar
and petitioner who is the 3rd accused received the stolen article
knowing that those are stolen.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
petitioner is a sub contractor and he is absolutely innocent of the
allegations made. Earlier anticipatory bail application was dismissed,
since 4 barrels of tar were not recovered. Now the seizure is already
effected and hence petitioner may be granted anticipatory bail.
4. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that four barrels of tar
were seized from the premises of the house of the petitioner. The
petitioner is required for custodial interrogation, since several facts
have to be brought out by interrogating him. Out of sixteen barrels,
twelve barrels were kept in the property of some other person.
5. On hearing both sides, I am satisfied that having seized 4
barrels of stolen article from the premises of the petitioner, the
BA 5091/2008 -2-
request made by the learned Public Prosecutor is only reasonable.
Though second application is filed on the ground that there is change
in the circumstances. More incriminating circumstance is now revealed
as far as the petitioner is concerned because of the recovery of stolen
article. The petitioner would be required for custodial interrogation and
I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail, since it may adversely
affect an effective investigation in this case.
The application is dismissed.
K. HEMA, JUDGE.
mn.