IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Bail Appl No. 218 of 2008()
1. SUNIL KUMAR, S/O.SUKUMARAN,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI. K.SHAJ
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
Dated :16/01/2008
O R D E R
R.BASANT, J
------------------------------------
B.A.No. 218 of 2008
-------------------------------------
Dated this the 16th day of January, 2008
ORDER
Application for regular bail. Petitioner in this crime faces
allegations under Section 379 I.P.C. He has been continuing in
custody from 17.10.07. His arrest in this crime has been recorded
on 18.12.07.
2. On 17.10.07, the petitioner was allegedly intercepted
when he tried to transport spirit in the vehicle in question. He
was arrested in that crime on 17.10.07. He continues in custody
from that date. Investigations reveal that the vehicle in which
transportation of spirit took place is a stolen vehicle. In respect of
theft of that vehicle, another crime has been registered. The
petitioner was shown as the accused in that crime and remains in
custody in such crime from 18.12.07.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner is innocent. He is not responsible for the commission of
the crime of theft of the car. He had received the car from some
other person for consideration. In these circumstances, he
cannot, at any rate, mulcted with the liability for theft of the
vehicle.
B.A.No. 218 of 2008 2
4. The learned Public Prosecutor opposes the application.
The learned Public Prosecutor submits that the petitioner is found
to be in possession of a car which was earlier thieved.
Presumptions of prudence under Section 114 of the Evidence Act
can justifiably be raised against the petitioner that he is either the
one who committed the theft or is one who received the stolen
property knowing the same to be stolen. In either event, the
offence is non bailable and the petitioner cannot be released. The
learned Public Prosecutor submits that the petitioner’s arrest in
this crime took place only on 18.12.07. The Investigating Officer
has not received sufficient time after the arrest of the petitioner
to complete the investigation. In these circumstances, the
petitioner may not be granted regular bail in this crime now,
submits the learned Public Prosecutor .
5. Having considered all the relevant inputs, I find merit
in the opposition by the learned Public Prosecutor. The stolen
vehicle was recovered from the possession of the petitioner who
claims to have purchased the same from another person who is
arrayed as the 1st accused, the petitioner being the 2nd accused.
The 1st accused has not been traced so far. The Investigating
Officer may be granted further time to trace the 1st accused and
B.A.No. 218 of 2008 3
complete the investigation in the crime, submits the learned
Public Prosecutor.
6. Having considered all the relevant inputs, I find merit
in the opposition by the learned Public Prosecutor. It is true that
the petitioner has remained in custody from 17.10.07. But I
cannot lose sight of the fact that the petitioner was arrested only
on 18.12.07 and he is the one who is found to be in possession of
the stolen car though the petitioner has claimed that the same
has been purchased from one Vijayan. The said Vijayan has not
been traced so far. I am satisfied that the petitioner is not
entitled for regular bail at this stage.
7. This application for regular bail is, in these
circumstances, dismissed, but with the observation 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
30.01.08. The investigators must in the meantime make every
endeavour to complete the investigation.
(R.BASANT, JUDGE)
rtr/-