IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Bail Appl No. 1120 of 2008()
1. SREEROOP, S/O. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.P.S.SREEDHARAN PILLAI
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
Dated :25/02/2008
O R D E R
R. BASANT, J.
-------------------------------------------------
B.A. No. 1120 of 2008
-------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 25th day of February, 2008
ORDER
Application for regular bail. The petitioner is the 1st
accused in a crime registered alleging offences punishable
under Secs.457 and 380 read with Sec.511 of the IPC. The
alleged incident took place on 30/1/08 at about 3.30 a.m. The
petitioner, along with the co-accused, allegedly came in a
Maruthi car and were attempting to commit theft in a grossery
shop by breaking open the lock of the shutter. While they
were engaged in such attempt, the informant, who was driving
a lorry along that way, noticed the incident and reported the
fact to the police. The petitioner was arrested on 31/1/08. He
continues in custody from that date. The 2nd accused has also
been arrested. Two other persons have also been named and
brought on the array of accused. They have not been arrested
B.A. No. 1120 of 2008 -: 2 :-
so far. The petitioner continues in custody from 31/1/08.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner is absolutely innocent. He was not arrested at the
scene of the crime. He was arrested long later on 31/1/08 at
Calicut. He is in no way connected with the crime. The
petitioner may, in these circumstances, be granted bail, it is
prayed.
3. The learned Public Prosecutor opposes the application.
The learned Public Prosecutor submits that though the
miscreants were not identified by names by the lorry driver who
detected the offence, the car number was clearly shown on the
very next day. The petitioner was seen in that car. He had no
satisfactory explanation to offer. In these circumstances, the
petitioner may not be enlarged on bail at this early stage. The
Investigator may be given some further time to complete the
investigation and apprehend the co-accused also, it is prayed.
4. Having considered all the relevant inputs, I find merit in
the opposition by the learned Public Prosecutor. I am not
persuaded to agree that the discretion under Sec.439 of the
Cr.P.C. deserves to be invoked in favour of the petitioner at this
stage.
5. In the result, this bail application is dismissed. But I
B.A. No. 1120 of 2008 -: 3 :-
may hasten to observe that the petitioner shall be at liberty to
move this Court for bail again at a later stage of the investigation
– not, at any rate, prior to 10/3/08. The Investigator shall, in the
meantime, make every endeavour to complete the investigation.
Sd/-
(R. BASANT, JUDGE)
Nan/
//true copy//
P.S. to Judge