IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Bail Appl..No. 4720 of 2008()
1. MURALEEDHARAN NAIR.V., AGED ABOUT 42
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE STATE OF KERALA,
... 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.
K. HEMA, JUDGE.
mn.
