IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN FRIDAY, THE 30TH SEPTEMBER 2011 / 8TH ASWINA 1933 Bail Appl..No. 7637 of 2011 CR.NO.178 OF 2006 OF BADIADKA POLICE STATION. SC.613/2010 OF ADDL. SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC-III), KASARAGODE PETITIONER/ACCUSED -------------------------------------- RABDEEN SALEEM,S/O.NAGURPICHAN, KADAMBACKA,ARUNACHALAM COLONY, POLUR ,CHENNAI. BY ADV. SRI.T.B.SHAJIMON RESPONDENT: COMPLAINANT -------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KASARAGOD POLICE STATION, REP.BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.V.TEKCHAND THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/09/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------ Bail Appl. NO. 7637 OF 2011 ------------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 30th day of September, 2011 O R D E R This is an application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner is accused No.2 in Crime No.178 of 2006 of Badiadka Police Station, which is now pending as Sessions Case No.613 of 2010 on the file of the Court of Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc III), Kasaragod. (It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor that the crime number noted in the order of the Sessions Judge and in the Bail Application as Crime No.178 of 2006 of Kasaragod Police Station is a mistake.) 2. The offence alleged against the petitioner is under Sections 120B, 323, 396, 449 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The prosecution case is that during the night of 7.10.2006 and the early hours on 8.10.2006, the accused persons, in furtherance of the conspiracy, broke open the grill of Perdala Service BAIL APPL. NO.7637 OF 2011 :: 2 :: Co-operative Bank at Neerchal and after tying down Dennis Rasta, the watchman of the bank, murdered him. It is also alleged that CWs. 3 to 5, who came near the premises of the bank to supply milk in the nearby shop, were also attacked by the accused. The petitioner was arrested on 7.12.2006. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that during the committal stage, bail was granted to the petitioner as per the order passed by the High Court. But, the copy of the order is not produced. Even the Bail Application number is not mentioned. The counsel submitted that though bail was granted in the case, the petitioner was not released from jail as he was undergoing sentence in S.C.No.139 of 2000 and S.C.No.140 of 2000 on the file of the Sessions Court. It is submitted that in those cases, the petitioner was convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for six years and eight years respectively. The counsel submits that in an appeal before the Supreme Court, the period of sentence was reduced and the petitioner has served those sentences. After the period of sentence is over, the petitioner submitted a Bail Application in the present case before the Additional Sessions Court (Adhoc III), BAIL APPL. NO.7637 OF 2011 :: 3 :: Kasaragod. That application was dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge as per the order dated 6.8.2011. 5. The petitioner belongs to Chennai. The allegation is that the accused persons committed dacoity and, in that process, they murdered the watchman of the bank. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that if the petitioner is released on bail, there is every chance of the petitioner making himself scarce and fleeing from justice. The criminal antecedents of the petitioner are also relevant. It is submitted that the petitioner was involved in similar offences and he was convicted and sentenced in those cases. 6. If the petitioner is released on bail, there is every likelihood of his fleeing from justice and making himself scarce. The petitioner was convicted and sentenced in two Sessions Cases. It is not known, for what offences he was convicted. The criminal antecedents of the petitioner would lead me to think that it is not safe to release the petitioner on bail. Interests of the petitioner can be safeguarded by directing the Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc-III) Kasaragod to expedite the trial of S.C.No.613 of 2010. BAIL APPL. NO.7637 OF 2011 :: 4 :: For the aforesaid reasons, the Bail Application is dismissed. The Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc-III) Kasaragod shall expedite the trial of S.C.No.613 of 2010, taking into account the fact that the petitioner is in judicial custody. (K.T.SANKARAN) Judge ahz/