IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN FRIDAY, THE 20TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 29TH KARTHIKA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 6829 of 2009 CRIME NO.1259 OF 2009 OF ANGAMALY POLICE STATION ACCUSED NOS.1,2 & 3 --------------------------------------- 1. SETHU @ ROOPESH,AGED 21 YEARS, S/O.THANKAPPAN,PAININGAL VEEDU,RESIDING IN PLANTATION QUARTERS,ATHIRAPPILLY BHAGAM, VATTILAPPARA KARA,AYYAMPUZHA VILLAGE. 2. SOMI,S/O.KURIAN 2 KURIAKOSE, PAINADATH VEEDU,NEDUNGOTTA KARA, AYYAMPUZHA VILLAGE. 3. RAIMON,S/O.VARGHESE,KANNAMPILLY VEEDU, NJALOOKKARA,KARUKUTTY VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.A.C.DEVY RESPONDENT: COMPLAINANT -------------------------- THE STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.TEKCHAND THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------ B.A. NO. 6829 OF 2009 ------------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 20th day of November, 2009 O R D E R This is an application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Petitioners are accused Nos.1, 2 and 3 in Crime No.1259 of 2009 of Angamaly Police Station. 2. The offence alleged against the petitioners are under Sections 394 and 450 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The gist of the prosecution case is the following: The third accused Raimon is a distant relative of the de facto complainant. The husband of the de facto complainant is employed in a Gulf country. Raimon knew that the de facto complainant was having sufficient wealth and jewellery. He came to the house of the de facto complainant on 12.6.2009. As instructed by the third accused, accused Nos.1 and 2 stealthily entered into the house of the de facto complainant. Later, chilly powder was sprinkled on the face of the de facto complainant and the accused robbed 102.5 grams of gold, three ATM cards and a sum of Rs.500/- from the house of the de facto complainant. B.A. NO. 6829 OF 2009 :: 2 :: 4. The petitioners were arrested on 31.8.2009 and they were remanded to judicial custody. 5. After completing the investigation, charge sheet was filed in the case. 6. Learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the application for bail in so far as it relates to accused Nos.2 and 3. It is submitted that accused Nos.2 and 3 are involved in several other similar offences and if they are released on bail, it is almost sure that they will indulge in similar criminal activities to the detriment of the interests of the general public. It is also submitted that the third accused was detained under the Kerala Anti Social Activities Prevention Act for a period of six months and even thereafter he was inclined to commit the offence in the present case. 7. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, the duration of the judicial custody undergone by the petitioners, the nature of the offence and the present stage of investigation, I am of the view that bail can be granted to the first petitioner (first accused). At the same time, I am not inclined to grant B.A. NO. 6829 OF 2009 :: 3 :: bail to petitioners 2 and 3 (accused Nos.2 and 3). 8. The first petitioner shall be released on bail on his executing bond for Rs.50,000/- with two solvent sureties for the like amount to the satisfaction of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class-II, Aluva, subject to the following conditions: a) The first petitioner shall report before the Station House Officer, Angamaly Police Station between 9 A.M. and 11 A.M. on all Mondays until further orders; b) The first petitioner shall not try to influence the prosecution witnesses or tamper with the evidence; c) The first petitioner shall not commit any offence or indulge in any prejudicial activity while on bail; d) In case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, the bail shall be liable to be cancelled. The Bail Application is allowed in the manner indicated above in so far as it relates to the first petitioner (accused No.1) and it is dismissed in so far as it relates to petitioners 2 and 3 (accused Nos.2 and 3). (K.T.SANKARAN) Judge ahz/