This is an application for anticipatory bail filed by the first accused in Crime No.1120/2014 of Kuthuparamba police station under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
2. The case of the prosecution in nutshell was that on 21.08.2014 at about 00.15 hours, the accused persons have involved in theft of river sand and they were engaged in collecting the same in the lorry with No. KL 58G 3237 and thereby, they have committed the offence punishable under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 21 of Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act.
3. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has not committed any offence and he is innocent of the same and he has been implicated in the case only because he happened to be the owner of the vehicle and no offence has been attracted against him.
4. The application was opposed by the Public Prosecutor on the ground that he was also present at the time of commission of the crime and on seeing the police party, he left the vehicle and ran away from the place along with the second accused.
5. Heard both sides and perused the records.
6. It is seen from the records that on 21.08.2014 during night at about 00.15 hours police party got information that some people were engaged in removal of river sand in Kallurikadavu, Vengad and immediately when they went to that place, they saw two persons engaged in removing sand and loading the same in the vehicle No.KL 58G 3237 and on seeing the police party, they abandoned the vehicle and ran away from that place. They seized the vehicle with the sand and originally registered the crime against the owner of the lorry and another. During investigation, it was revealed that the present petitioner is the owner of the vehicle and he was also present there at that time along with the other identifiable person. So, they have implicated the present petitioner as first accused. Considering the nature of the allegations, this court feels that it is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner as the presence of the petitioner will be required for proper investigation. So, considering the circumstances, this court feels that it is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail that the petitioner invoking the power under Section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure. This will not be a bar for the petitioner to surrender before the investigating officer or before the magistrate and on such surrender, the investigating officer after recording the arrest produce him before the concerned magistrate court and on such production, on filing an application for bail by the petitioner, the magistrate considering the same and passing appropriate orders in accordance with law.
So, the application is liable to be rejected.
In the result, the application is rejected with the above observation.
Sd/-
K.Ramakrishnan, Judge.
Bb [True copy] P.A to Judge