This is an application filed by the accused in Crime No. 1089 of 2014 of Chavakkad Police Station, for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code' for short). 2. The case of the prosecution in nut shell was that, between 10 a.m on 22.03.2014 and 7.a.m on 23.03.2014, the accused had stolen the Tempo Traveller with Reg.No.KL-7-AW5361 from the residence of the de facto complainant and thereby he had committed the offence punishable under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has not committed any offence. In fact, he had sold the vehicle to the de facto complainant and there was some amount due in the transaction and the de facto complainant had no case that it was taken by the petitioner. But, he was implicated in the case only on the basis that the chance finger print taken from the vehicle was found tallied with the petitioner. So, according to the petitioner, that is not a ground for implicating him especially when there is a civil suit is pending in respect of the same and the interim custody of the vehicle was given to the de facto complainant on certain conditions which has not been fulfilled by the de facto complainant so far.
4. The application is opposed by the Public Prosecutor on the ground that the investigation is not over.
5. Heard both sides and perused the records.
6. It is seen from the records that the above case was registered on the basis of the statement given by the de facto complainant alleging theft of the vehicle against unknown person and later, when the vehicle was examined with the scientific assistant and finger print expert, chance finger print was obtained and when the finger print of the petitioner was taken as part of the investigation and verified, it tallied with the chance finger print found in the vehicle and thereafter, the petitioner has implicated in the case as the accused. I am not at this stage going into the question whether merely because the civil suit has been filed, the criminal liability if any committed by the petitioner will be taken way and he will be exonerated on that ground.
7. Further, considering the circumstances, this Court feels that this is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail invoking the power under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He can very well surrender before the Investigating Officer and on such surrender if the Investigating Officer feels that his arrest is required, then after recordings his arrest produce him before the concerned Magistrate Court and for such production, if the petitioner moves an application for bail before that court, then, the learned Magistrate can consider and dispose of the bail application strictly in accordance with law. So, the petitioner is not entitled to get anticipatory bail.
The petition is dismissed with the above observations.
Sd/-K. RAMAKRISHNAN, Judge /True Copy/ P.A to Judge lsn