Kerala High Court
Bhuvanachandran vs State Of Kerala on 20 March, 2017
Author: K.Abraham Mathew
Bench: K.Abraham Mathew
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.ABRAHAM MATHEW
MONDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF MARCH 2017/29TH PHALGUNA, 1938
Bail Appl..No. 1213 of 2017 ()
-------------------------------
CRIME NO. 138/2015 OF MUSEUM POLICE STATION,
THIRUVANANDAPURAM DISTRICT
-------
PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 AND 2:
---------------------------
1. BHUVANACHANDRAN,AGED 63 YEARS,
S/O.KRISHNANKUTTY, T.C.16/1061, K.R.BHAVAN,
JAGATHY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
2. RENJITH,AGED 36 YEARS,
S/O. BHUVANACHANDRAN,T.C.16/1061, K.R.BHAVAN,
JAGATHY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
BY ADVS.SRI.D.KISHORE
SMT.MINI GOPINATH
RESPONDENTS/STATE AND COMPLAINANT :
---------------------------------
1. STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682031.
2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF POLICE,
DISTRICT CRIME BRANCH, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001
3. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
MUSEUM POLICE STATION,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT-695001
R BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.AJITH MURALI
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 20-03-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE
FOLLOWING:
bp
K.ABRAHAM MATHEW J.
--------------------------------------------------------
B.A.No.1213 of 2017
--------------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 20th day of March, 2017
ORDER
Petition filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C.
2. The petitioners are the accused in Crime No.138 of 2015 of Museum Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram district registered for the offence under Sections 379, 380 and 427 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. The first petitioner is the owner of a building situated in Thiruvananthapuram city. The second petitioner is his son. The first informant is the tenant of the building where he is doing some business in home appliances. The allegation of the prosecution is that on 10.2.2015 the petitioners trespassed into the shop room and committed theft of certain home appliances. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the allegation is false.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the first informant and the learned Public Prosecutor.
5.The victim lodged a complaint with the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, who forwarded it to the police. The case was registered on 14.2.2015. Accepting the allegation that the investigation was dishonest, this court ordered investigation by the CBCID. I have perused the case diary. There are materials in the case diary to believe that earlier the investigation was dishonest. In the course of the present investigation the investing officer recorded the statement of the Poojari of the temple where the second petitioner was working as a watcher. The Poojari has disclosed to the B.A.No.1213 of 2017 2 investigating officer that certain home appliances were found in the godown of the devaswom and the second petitioner offered to sell them to him and others at a reduced price and even to give it free of cost. The statement of another person shows that he purchased tiles from the second petitioner. So it cannot be said that there is no prima facie case against the second petitioner. The facts of the case indicate that it was in furtherance of the common intention of both petitioners the offences were committed. The stolen articles have not been recovered so far. If anticipatory bail is granted to the petitioners, recovery of the articles will become impossible. So this application is only to be dismissed.
In the result, this application is dismissed.
Sd/-
K.ABRAHAM MATHEW
JUDGE
cms
/True copy/ P.S.to Judge