IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN THURSDAY, THE 4TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 15TH MAGHA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 512 of 2010() -------------------------------- CRIME NO. 1067/2009 OF ANGAMALY POLICE STATION ........................ PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1-6: ---------------------------------- 1. KISHORE, S/O.ANASOOYA, AGED 25, H.NO.118, NEAR IOC BASIN ROAD, MANALY EXPRESS ROAD, RAMASWAMY NAGAR, KARMEDU, THIRUVATHOOR, THIRUVALLOOR DISTRICT. 2. KUMAR, S/O. MARY, AGED 27, H.NO.7, NEW HOUSE NO.13, 6TH STREET, RAJAMANGAL, WILLIVAGAM, CHENNAI-49, TAMILNADU. 3. KISHORE, AGED 26, S/O.VENKITAYA, DOOR NO.5, GOVT.COLONY, BENGELMADELAM, KARAPRATTIPPA, BITHRAGUND, NELLOOR DISTRICT, ANDRAPRADESH. 4. LASAR, S/O.MANORAMA, AGED 22, OLD HOUSE NO.54, NEW NO.24, INDIRA NAGAR, PALLAM, RAJAMANGALAM, VILLIVAKOM, CHENNAI-49, TAMILNADU. 5. JOHNSON, AGED 29, S/O.MALLAYA, H.NO.5, 2ND STREET, NEAR WATER TANK, RAJAMANGALAM, -DO-. 6. PRADEEP, AGED 26, S/O.BABU AND SAKTHI, D.NO.45, NEAR TELUNGU CHURCH, 3RD CROSS ROAD, JARDHAPET, KAVELI DISTRICT, ANDRAPRADESH. BY ADV. SRI.P.SHAIJAN JOSEPH RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT: ----------------------------------- SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ANGAMALY POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY SRI. K.S.SIVAKUMAR PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T. SANKARAN, J. --------------------------- B.A. No. 512 of 2010 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 4th day of February, 2010 O R D E R This is an application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioners are accused Nos. 1 to 6 in Crime No.1067/2009 of Angamaly Police Station. 2. The offence alleged against the petitioners is under Section 380 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The prosecution case is the following: On 21.05.2009 at about 11.30 A.M., the de facto complainant was returning from a bank. He was carrying an amount of Rs. 1,60,000/- in a hand bag. Someone told him that his shirt was soiled on its back side. The de facto complainant decided to wash off the dirt, after removing his shirt. He reached near a public water tap. He placed the hand bag containing Rs.1,60,000/- near the water tap. After washing the shirt, the de facto complainant realised that the hand bag was missing. The matter was reported to the police. 4. The petitioners, who hail from Tamil Nadu and Andhra Pradesh, were arrested by Tripunithara Police in another crime. On B.A. No. 512 of 2010 2 questioning them, they admitted that they had committed the offence in the present case. Thereupon, the petitioners were arrested in the present crime and they were remanded to judicial custody on 07.09.2009. The petitioners moved for bail before the learned Sessions Judge. That application was dismissed. The learned Sessions Judge held as follows: “On a mere perusal of the case diary file in this case, it is very clear that the crime committed in this case is well-planned and atrocious. If the factual report submitted by the Investigating Officer is anything to go by, the petitioners are involved in a series of such well-planned crimes throughout the State. Having regard to the nature of the crime and the criminal background of the petitioners, there cannot be any doubt that their release on bail is not in the larger interest of the society. The likelihood of the petitioners absconding and repeating such crimes with impunity, while on bail has also to be taken into account in this context. As could be seen from the case diary file, the investigation is over and the final report is also filed before Court. As pointed out by the learned B.A. No. 512 of 2010 3 Prosecutor, if the petitioners are released on bail there is no possibility of their being available for trial of the case. In any view of the matter, I am convinced that the petitioners cannot be released on bail during the trial of this case. It follows that this bail application is without any merit. “ 5. Thereafter, the petitioners filed another application for bail before the learned Sessions Judge, which was also dismissed by the order dated 16.01.2010. The learned Sessions Judge noticed that final report was filed before the Court. The Magistrate having jurisdiction was directed by the learned Sessions Judge to expedite the trial of the case and to dispose of the case within a period of 4 months. 6. The petitioners are involved in another case of similar nature as well. The petitioners belong to Tamil Nadu and Andra Pradesh. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are prepared to deposit any reasonable amount before the Court as a condition for granting bail. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that there are gangs of criminals like the petitioners and the B.A. No. 512 of 2010 4 persons who are controlling the affairs would even invest money to get the petitioners released on bail so that their services can be utilised for similar crimes. Incidents like the one involved in the present case are on increase in the State. It is also noticed that criminals from neighbouring States come to Kerala to commit offences of serious nature and cross the border thereafter. The people in the State are put to misery by the commission of such crimes. It is necessary to take a stringent view while dealing with the cases of this nature. The accused persons, who are alleged to have committed heinous crimes, should not be allowed to move freely and commit similar offences, thereby making the life of law abiding citizens miserable. I do not find any ground to allow the application for bail. For the aforesaid reasons, the Bail Application is dismissed. K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE ln