Muraleedharan Nair.V. vs The State Of Kerala on 18 August, 2008

Kerala High Court
Muraleedharan Nair.V. vs The State Of Kerala on 18 August, 2008




Bail Appl..No. 4720 of 2008()

                      ...  Petitioner


                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.P.V.ANIL

                For Respondent  :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

The Hon'ble MRS. Justice K.HEMA

 Dated :18/08/2008

 O R D E R
                                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.



Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies. More Information