IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN TUESDAY, THE 24TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 3RD AGRAHAYANA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 6832 of 2009 CRIME NO.536 OF 2008 OF ANGAMALY POLICE STATION PETITIONERS: ACCUSED: ------------------------------- 1. BAIJU, S/O.CHATHAN, AGED 32 YEARS VADUKAPPILLY VEEDU, NEAR SIVA TEMPLE KULIRAMTHODU BHAGAM BLOCK NO.XII PLANTATION, AYYAMPUZHA VILLAGE, ERANAKULAM. 2. GIREESH, S/O. THANKAPPAN, AGED 25 YEARS VETTIKKADAN VEEDU, NEAR AMALAPURAM CHURCH AYYAMPUZHA VILLAGE, ERANAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.M.SHYJU SRI.SANAL KUMAR RESPONDENT: COMPLAINANT: --------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.M.S.BREEZ THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------ B.A. NO. 6832 OF 2009 ------------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 24th 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 and 2 in Crime No.536 of 2008 of Angamaly Police Station. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioners are under Sections 379, 468 and 471 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The prosecution case is that on 18.4.2008, the motor bike belonging to the de facto complainant was stolen by the accused persons. The de facto complainant had parked the vehicle in a hospital compound at Angamaly. The investigating agency could not find out the vehicle till 19.10.2009. The accused persons were found riding the motor bike with a fake registration number. They were arrested on 19.10.2009 and they were remanded to judicial custody. B.A. NO. 6832 OF 2009 :: 2 :: 4. The application filed by the petitioners for bail was dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge, as per the order dated 9.11.2009. 5. It is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that the first petitioner (first accused) is involved in several cases of similar nature and the second petitioner (second accused) is involved in another case of the same nature. 6. The first petitioner (first accused) appears to be a professional in the matter of committing the offence of theft. If he is released on bail, there is every likelihood of the first accused indulging in similar criminal activities to the detriment of the interests of the general public. The second accused is involved in only one case. 7. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that bail can be granted to the second petitioner (second accused) on stringent conditions. At the same time, I do not think that the first petitioner (first accused) can be released on bail at this stage. B.A. NO. 6832 OF 2009 :: 3 :: 8. The second petitioner (second accused) shall be released on bail on his executing bond for Rs.25,000/- 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 second petitioner (second accused) shall report before the investigating officer between 9 A.M. and 11 A.M. on all Mondays and Thursdays, till the final report is filed or until further orders; b) The second petitioner (second accused) shall appear before the investigating officer for interrogation as and when required; c) The second petitioner (second accused) shall not try to influence the prosecution witnesses or tamper with the evidence; d) The second petitioner (second accused) shall not commit any offence or indulge in any prejudicial activity while on bail; e) In case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, the bail shall be liable to be cancelled. The Bail Application is dismissed in so far as it relates to the first petitioner/first accused and it is allowed in the manner indicated above in so far as it relates to the second petitioner/second accused. (K.T.SANKARAN) Judge ahz/