IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN THURSDAY, THE 5TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 14TH KARTHIKA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 6418 of 2009() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.254/2009 OF KUTHUPARAMBA POLICE STATION, KANNUR .................... PETITIONER/2ND ACCUSED ------------------------------------------ M.P.SUJITH,S/O.RAGHAVAN, AGED 29 YEARS,COOLIE,RESIDING AT KARIYIL HOUSE, P.O.NIRMALAGIRI,KUTHUPARAMBA,KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.RAMESH CHANDER SRI.ANEESH JOSEPH RESPONDENT(S): STATE -------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.M.S.BREEZ THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. --------------------------------------------- B.A.No.6418 of 2009 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 5th day of November, 2009 ORDER The petitioner had filed Bail Application No.6079 of 2009 under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. That Bail Application was dismissed by me by the order dated 23rd October 2009. The said order reads as follows: “This is an application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner is accused No.1 in Crime No.254 of 2009 of Kuthuparamba Police Station. 2. The offence alleged against the petitioner is under Section 394 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The prosecution case is that on 13.8.2009, the accused persons, two in number, came on a motor bike and attempted to loot jewellery items from a jewellery which was scheduled to be inaugurated on 14.8.2009. In that process, the security guard of the jewellery was attacked with a sword and he sustained injuries. The accused persons escaped from scene. 4. The petitioner was arrested on 17.9.2009 and he was remanded to judicial custody. Accused No.2 is not arrested so far. The investigation is in progress. If the petitioner is released on bail at this stage, it would seriously affect the proper investigation of the case. It is BA No.6418/2009 2 also likely that the investigating agency may not be able to arrest the second accused, if the petitioner is released on bail. For the aforesaid reasons, the Bail Application is dismissed.” 2. On the 6th day after the order dismissing Bail Application No.6079 of 2009 was passed, the present application is filed. I see no ground to allow the application. For the same reasons on which Bail Application No.6079 of 2009 was dismissed, I dismiss the present application for bail. K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE csl