IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN TUESDAY, THE 8TH DECEMBER 2009 / 17TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 7206 of 2009() ------------------------------------ CRIME NO.370/2008 OF THIRUVALLAM POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. .................... PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 6 & 7: --------------------------------------------- 1. SHAJAHAN, S/O.ABDUL RAHMAN, TC 35/522, PUTHUVEL PUTHEN VEEDU, JUMA MAZJID, CHEELANTHIMUKKU, VALLAKADAVU, PETTAH VILLAGE. 2. AL AMEEN, S/O.MUHAMMED MYDEEN, TC 35/1236, PRIYADARSHINI NAGAR, BANGLADESH CLY, PETTAH, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.SUMAN CHAKRAVARTHY SMT.M.P.SUNITHA BEEGUM RESPONDENT/ COMPLAINANT: -------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. SRI. M.S.BREEZ, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T. SANKARAN, J. --------------------------- B.A. No. 7206 of 2009 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 8th day of December, 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. 6 and 7 in Crime No.370/2008 of Thiruvallam Police Station. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioners are under Sections 120B and 395 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The prosecution case is that on 31/12/2008 at 7.45 A.M., the de facto complainant, while travelling on a bike carrying Rs.20,50,000/-, was attacked by the accused persons with chopper. It is alleged that the accused persons forcibly took away the money from the de facto complainant. The first petitioner (accused No.6) was arrested on 17/9/2009 and the second petitioner (accused No.7) was arrested on 23/9/2009. It is submitted that the arrest of petitioner No.2 was a formal arrest as he was arrested in connection with another case. 4. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the first petitioner (6thaccused) is involved in two other cases, of which one case involves an offence under Section 302 of the Indian B.A. No. 7206/2009 2 Penal Code and other case involves an offence under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned Public Prosecutor also submitted that accused No.7 (second petitioner) is involved in twelve other criminal cases. 5. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature and gravity of the offence, the manner in which the offence was committed, the complicity of the petitioners in other offences and the nature of other offences in which the accused persons are involved, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioners at this stage. If the petitioners are released on bail, it would seriously affect the proper investigation of the case. It is also likely, as rightly pointed out by the learned Public Prosecutor, that the petitioners may make themselves scarce and intimidate or influence the witnesses. For the aforesaid reasons, the Bail application is dismissed. K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE scm