IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN MONDAY, THE 23RD NOVEMBER 2009 / 2ND AGRAHAYANA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 6824 of 2009 CRIME NO.883 OF 2009 OF KARUNAGAPPALLY POLICE STATION PETITIONER: ACCUSED (A14); ---------------------------------- SAITH ALAVI, AGED 52, S/O.ABDULLA, SANKARAN HOUSE, NEAR L.P.SCHOOL, CHOKKATTU VILLAGE, NILAMBOOR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.S.GIRISH RESPONDENT: COMPLAINANT: --------------------------- THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KARUNAGAPPALLY POLICE STATION THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.M.S.BREEZ THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/11/2009, ALONGWITH B.A.NO.6839 OF 2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------ B.A. NOS.6824 & 6839 OF 2009 ------------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 23rd day of November,2009 O R D E R These are applications for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner in B.A.No.6824 of 2009 is accused No.14 and petitioners in B.A.No.6839 of 2009 are accused Nos.1,2,3 and 5 in Crime No.883 of 2009 of Karunagapally Police Station. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioners are under Sections 395, 120 B, 109 and 414 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The gist of the prosecution case is the following: The de facto complainant is employed in a jewellery in Thrissur. The employer of the de facto complainant used to supply large quantity of jewellery items to jewelleries in Karunagappally and nearby places.The de facto complainant used to supply the jewellery items at Karunagappally as directed by his employer. The accused persons were aware of the transporting of jewellery from Thrissur to Karunagappally twice in a week. They plotted an idea of robbing the B.A. Nos.6824 & 6839 OF 2009 :: 2 :: jewellery. They made preparations for the same. Various accused persons were given specific duties at various stages of the commission of the offence. The allegation is that the accused persons had even gone to Karunagappally on an earlier occasion to chart out the plan in a very effective and flawless manner. On 29/8/2009, the de facto complainant went to Karunagappally from Thrissur in Island Express train. He reached Karunagappally at 2.15 P.M.. Three of the accused persons reached near him on a motor bike and attacked him with sword. The de facto complainant sustained injuries. The bag containing 6.75 Kgs of golden jewellery was snatched from the de facto complainant. The aforesaid three persons immediately left the place. The bag containing jewellery items was transferred to some other accused who were travelling in a car. They were waiting in the car at the specified place. After receiving the bag, they left the place. Further allegation is that head of the team is one Rinto, whose orders nobody dared to challenge. Rinto gave share of profits to the other accused persons. Rinto sold the jewellery to various persons. He also gave small quantities of jewellery to some of the accused persons as well. 4. Accused No.14 was arrested on 20.9.2009 and accused B.A. Nos.6824 & 6839 OF 2009 :: 3 :: Nos.1,2,3 and 5 were arrested on 10.9.2009. 5. In so far as accused No.14 is concerned, the allegations levelled against him would attract only offence under Section 414 of the Indian Penal Code. Final report is not filed after completing the investigation till now, though accused No.14 was arrested on 20.9.2009. Therefore, accused No.14 is entitled to default bail under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 6. The position of accused Nos.1,2,3 and 5 is different. The allegation is that accused Nos.1 and 2 came to the scene of occurrence on a bike and attacked the de facto complainant using a sword. Accused No.3 came in a car and joined accused Nos.1 and 2 at the railway station. The allegation is that the third accused took the bag containing gold after robing the same from the de facto complainant. The allegation against the fifth accused is that he travelled in the same compartment in the train in which the de facto complainant was travelling and he was reporting to the other accused the movements of the de facto complainant, in order to facilitate commission of the crime. B.A. Nos.6824 & 6839 OF 2009 :: 4 :: 7. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that accused Nos.12 and 13 are yet to be arrested. Accused No.13, Rinto, is the leader of the gang. 8. The offence alleged is very grave. The offence was committed after making preparations and plans. Several persons are involved in the offence. The quantity of gold involved is 6.75Kgs worth Rs.91 lakhs. The investigation is in progress. If the petitioners are released on bail at this stage, it would adversely affect the smooth and proper investigation of the case. It is also most likely, as rightly pointed out by the learned Public Prosecutor, that the petitioners in B.A.No.6839 of 2009 may indulge in activities to tamper with the evidence and to influence and intimidate the witnesses. 9. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioners in B.A.No.6839 of 2009. 10. The petitioner in B.A.No.6824 of 2009 (accused No.14) B.A. Nos.6824 & 6839 OF 2009 :: 5 :: 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, Karunagappally, subject to the following conditions: a) The petitioner in B.A.No.6824 of 2009 (accused No.14) 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 petitioner in B.A.No.6824 of 2009 (accused No.14) shall appear before the investigating officer for interrogation as and when required; c) The petitioner in B.A.No.6824 of 2009 (accused No.14) shall not try to influence the prosecution witnesses or tamper with the evidence; d) The petitioner in B.A.No.6824 of 2009 (accused No.14) 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. B.A.No.6824 of 2009 is allowed and B.A.No.6839 of 2009 is dismissed as above. (K.T.SANKARAN) Judge ahz/