IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN TUESDAY, THE 17TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 26TH KARTHIKA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 6549 of 2009 CRIME NO.228 OF 2009 OF VADAKARA POLICE STATION, KOZHIKODE PETITIONER/ACCUSED -------------------------------------- ABDUL KHADER, S/O. MAMMU, CHERIYA VALAPPIL HOUSE, THODANNUR POST, VATAKARA TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.RAKESH ROSHAN K. SMT.THUSHARA.V RESPONDENT: COMPLAINANT: --------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECTUOR, HIGH CORUT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.TEKCHAND THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/11/2009, ALONG WITH BA NO. 6591 AND 6605 OF 2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------ B.A. NOS.6549, 6591 & 6605 OF 2009 ------------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 17th day of November,2009 O R D E R These Bail Applications are filed by the same person who is accused No.5 in Crime No.228 of 2009 of Vadakara Police Station, accused No.4 in Crime No.92 of 2009 of Kannur Town Police Station and accused No.4 in Crime No.89 of 2009 of Kannur Town Police Station. 2. In Crime No.228 of 2009 of Vadakara Police Station, the offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 457, 380 and 411 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, while in the other two cases, the offences alleged are under Sections 457, 380, 461 and 411 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The prosecution case in Crime No.228 of 2009 is that accused Nos.1, 2 and 4 entered into a home appliances shop on 20.3.2009 and committed theft of three LCD televisions. The allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner helped the B.A. NOS.6549, 6591 & 6605 OF 2009 :: 2 :: accused in the sale of the stolen articles and he also received some of the articles knowing them to be stolen articles. 4. In Crime No.92 of 2009, the allegation is that on 28.2.2009, accused Nos.1 to 3 had stolen two laptops and 30 mobile phones from an electronic shop. It is alleged that the petitioner helped accused Nos.1 to 3 for the sale of stolen articles knowing fully well that they were stolen articles. 5. The prosecution case in Crime No.89 of 2009 is that on 26.2.2009, accused Nos.1 to 3 committed theft of five LCD televisions, one printer and a data card from a shop. The allegation against the petitioner is that he helped accused Nos.1 to 3 in the matter of sale of the stolen articles, he being fully aware of the fact that the articles were stolen. 6. The petitioner was arrested in Crime No.228 of 2009 on 9.10.2009 and his formal arrest was recorded in the other two cases on 16.10.2009. 7. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the B.A. NOS.6549, 6591 & 6605 OF 2009 :: 3 :: case, the nature and gravity of the offence and the allegations levelled against the petitioner, I am of the view that it is not safe to release the petitioner on bail at this stage. The allegation is that the petitioner is regularly involved in theft cases. It would be detrimental to the interests of the general public if the petitioner is let free to indulge in similar activities again. The investigation is not over. Recovery of the stolen articles has not been effected. If the petitioner is released on bail now, it would adversely affect the proper investigation of the case. For the aforesaid reasons, the Bail Applications are dismissed. (K.T.SANKARAN) Judge ahz/