IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Bail Appl..No. 3297 of 2009()
1. SHIYAS MUHAMMED,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE STATE OF KERALA
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.SOORAJ T.ELENJICKAL
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.T.SANKARAN
Dated :21/01/2010
O R D E R
K.T.SANKARAN, J.
---------------------------------------------
B.A.No.3297 of 2009
---------------------------------------------
Dated this the 21st day of January, 2010
ORDER
This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section
438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner is the
accused in Crime No.289 of 2009 of Venjaramoodu Police
Station.
2. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under
Sections 457 and 392 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. The prosecution case is that on 27.4.2009, at 7.30
P.M., when the de facto complainant entered into a room of her
house, the accused caught hold of her and snatched the gold
chain belonging to the de facto complainant. The de facto
complainant resisted. However, the accused could snatch a
portion of the chain and he ran away. It is alleged that the
accused was keeping himself concealed in the room waiting for
the de facto complainant to enter into the room from the
varandha. The accused is a neighbour of the de facto
complainant.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that
the FIR was registered only on 9.5.2009 and therefore, the case
BA No.3297/2009 2
of the prosecution cannot be believed. In the FI statement
itself, mention is made about the attempts made to settle the
disputes, since the accused is a neighbour of the de facto
complainant. The question whether the delay in lodging the FIR
is material, in the facts and circumstances, need not be decided
while disposing of this Bail Application. If a finding is arrived at
on that question, prejudice would be caused either to
prosecution or to the defence. For the disposal of this Bail
Application, a decision on that point is not necessary also.
5. The allegation levelled against the petitioner is grave
in nature. Custodial interrogation of the petitioner may be
required during investigation. If anticipatory bail is granted to
the petitioner, it would adversely affect the proper investigation
of the case. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of
the view that the petitioner is not entitled to the discretionary
relief under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
For the aforesaid reasons, the Bail Application is dismissed.
K.T.SANKARAN,
JUDGE
csl