IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN THURSDAY, THE 8TH OCTOBER 2009 / 16TH ASWINA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 5762 of 2009() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.237/2009 OF KUMBLA POLICE STATION .................... PETITIONERS (S): ACCUSED 1&2: -------------------------------- 1. ABDUL RAHIMAN K.M., S/O.MOIDEEN KUTTY, AGED 21 YEARS, RESIDING AT KUNNIL HOUSE, PERAL KANNUR, KANNUR VILLAGE, KASARGOD TALUK & DISTRICT. 2. MOHAMMED RAFEEQUE @ RAFEEQUE, AGED 24 YEARS, S/O.MOIDU KUTTY, KUNNIL HOUSE, PERAL KANNUR, KANNUR VILLAGE, KASARGOD TALUK & DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.T.MADHU RESPONDENT(S): STATE: --------------------- THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, KUMBLA POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.M.S.BREEZ THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/10/2009, ALONG WITH BA NO. 5763 OF 2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. --------------------------------------------- B.A.Nos.5762 & 5763 of 2009 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 8th day of October, 2009 ORDER These are applications for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Bail Application No.5762 of 2009 is filed by accused Nos.1 and 2 and Bail Application No.5763 of 2009 is filed by accused No.3 in Crime No.237 of 2009 of Kumbla Police Station. 2. The offence alleged against the petitioners is under Sections 387 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The petitioners had filed B.A.No.5359 of 2009 before this Court which was disposed of by the order dated 23rd September 2009. It was held therein thus: “3. Shamsudeen, the husband of the defacto complainant was missing since July, 2007. He was doing business in Kasaragod. Accused Nos.1 and 2 are relatives of Shamsudeen. Accused Nos.1 and 2 are brothers. Accused No.3 is the friend of Accused Nos.1 and 2. The allegation is that the accused persons contacted the defacto complainant over telephone and informed that Shamsudeen was with them and that he BA No.5762 & 5763/2009 2 would be released if the defacto complainant paid a sum of Rs.50,00,000/-. The defacto complainant immediately informed the police. Since the telephone call came from Bombay, the Bombay Police was also informed. The petitioners were arrested by the Bombay Police and they were handed over to the Kumbla Police. The formal arrest of the petitioners was recorded on 27/8/2009. They are in judicial custody since then. 4. The learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the Bail Application. It was submitted that it has to be investigated and found out whether Shamsudeen was really in the custody of the petitioners and if so what happened after the arrest of the petitioners. Whereabouts of the Shamsudeen are to be traced out. The investigation is at the initial stage. It is submitted that if the petitioners are released on bail at his stage, it would affect the proper investigation of the case. The learned Public Prosecutor also pointed out that the accused persons are involved in several crimes. The first accused is involved in one case, where the offence alleged is under Section 392 of the Indian Penal Code. The second accused is involved in seven cases, out of which, in five cases, the offence alleged is under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code; in one case, the offence alleged is under Section 392 of the Indian Penal Code and in yet another case, the offence alleged BA No.5762 & 5763/2009 3 against the second petitioner is under Section 387 of the Indian Penal Code. 5. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that if the petitioners are released on bail at this stage, it would have adverse impact on the proper and smooth investigation of the case. It is also likely that the petitioners may make themselves scarce, if they are granted bail. It is to be noted that the petitioners were arrested from Bombay. The likelihood of the petitioners indulging in similar criminal activities, if they are released on bail, also cannot be ruled out. For the aforesaid reasons, the Bail Application is dismissed.” 4. The petitioners have filed these Bail Applications on the seventh day of the dismissal of the earlier Bail Application. The grounds on which the earlier Bail Application was dismissed still continue to exist. Therefore, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioners. The Bail Applications are accordingly dismissed. K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE csl