IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN MONDAY, THE 3RD AUGUST 2009 / 12TH SRAVANA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 4351 of 2009() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.307/2009 OF KUNNAMANGALAM POLICE STATION .................... PETITIONER/2ND ACCUSED ------------------------------------------ DEVI, W/O.VIJI, AGED 28 YEARS, PALANI AGRAVARAM, POLLACHI, NOW RESIDING AT KOLLAMUKKU, KOYILANDY, (CORRECT ADDRESS PALANI ADIVARAM, PALANI). BY ADV. SRI.SAJEEVAN KURUKKUTTIYULLATHIL RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT -------------------------- THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, KUNNAMANGALAM POLICE STATION, KOZHIKODE, THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.TEKCHAND THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. --------------------------------------------- B.A.No.4351 of 2009 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 3rd August 2009 ORDER This is an application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner is accused No.2 in Crime No.307 of 2009 of Kunnamangalam Police Station. 2. The offence alleged against the petitioner is under Section 392 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The prosecution case is that while the de facto complainant was travelling in an autorickshaw, the petitioner and the first accused requested for a lift. When the autorickshaw reached Mukkam Road junction, the accused persons snatched away the gold chain of the de facto complainant and ran away. On making a hue and cry by the de facto complainant, local people chased the accused and they were apprehended. On arrest, they were produced before the learned Magistrate, who remanded them to judicial custody. 4. The application for bail filed by the petitioner and the first accused before the learned Magistrate was dismissed by a detailed order dated 9.7.2009. The learned Magistrate held that BA No.4351/2009 2 charge was laid in the case and that the trial of the case could be expedited. It is also noticed therein that the petitioners belong to Tamil Nadu and if they are released on bail at this stage, they would not be available for trial. Cogent reasons are stated for denying bail. 5. The petitioner and the first accused filed B.A.No.3952 of 2009 before this Court which was dismissed by me by the order dated 22nd July 2009. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner's son is suffering from fever and that he has symptoms of jaundice. Annexure A3 outpatient ticket of the Medical College Hospital, Calicut, is produced in support of the contention. 7. Annexure A3 does not show that the son of the petitioner was admitted in the hospital. I am not inclined to allow the application for bail filed by the petitioner. Bail Application No.3952 of 2009 was dismissed by a detailed order and there is no change of circumstances warranting release of the petitioner on bail. However, if it is shown that the son of the petitioner is admitted in a hospital, the petitioner shall be BA No.4351/2009 3 allowed to see the child occasionally in the hospital. With the above observations, the Bail Application is dismissed. K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE csl