IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA MONDAY, THE 19TH JULY 2010 / 28TH ASHADHA 1932 Bail Appl..No. 4306 of 2010() ----------------------------- CMP.2305/2010 of ADDL.C.J.M.,TRIVANDRUM .................... (CRIME NO.379/2010 OF POOJAPPURA POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM) PETITIONER ------------------------------ 1. SATHAR S/O.ASINAR, SHABNA MANZIL, PRAVACHAMBALAM,PALLICHAL VILLAGE, 2. UNNIKRISHNAN, S/O.RAVEENDRAN, TC 39/1644,PANAYIL VEEDU,MANACAUD VILLAGE BY ADV. SRI.G.SUDHEER RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM 2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, POOJAPPURA POLICE STATION PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.M.S.BREEZ THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. ------------------ B.A. No.4306 of 2010 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 19th day of July, 2010 O R D E R This petition is for bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Sections 120(B), 364 A and 394 of Indian Penal Code. According to prosecution, accused numbers 1 to 5 hatched a criminal conspiracy and thereby on 12/06/2010, at about 10:30 p.m, accused numbers 1 to 3 went to the house of de facto complainant and abducted him in a car. He was also beaten up. De facto complainant was directed to inform his family members to pay Rs.1,45,000/- to accused numbers 4 and 5. Accused numbers 1 to 3 robbed two mobile phones belonging to de facto complainant. 3. Petitioners are accused numbers 4 and 5. They were arrested on 04/06/2010 and they are in custody for the past 35 days. It is submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that petitioners are innocent. They did not commit any offence as alleged. They received a phone call from third accused saying that his mobile phone will be brought by a person and asked petitioners to collect the same from a particular place. Therefore, they were waiting there. They are not aware of the commission of any offence by accused numbers 1 to 3. Fourth accused is a friend of third accused and petitioners have no other role in the offence, it is submitted. It is B.A. No.4306 of 2010 2 also submitted that de facto complainant had withdrawn some money using the credit card of first accused and there was some issue between de facto complainant and accused numbers 1 to 3. But, petitioners have no involvement in the said transaction. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that considering the stage of investigation, petitioner may be granted bail on stringent conditions. On hearing both sides, I am satisfied that bail can be granted on conditions. Hence the following order is passed: Petitioners shall be released on bail on their executing bond for Rs.50,000/- with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the Magistrate Court concerned on the following conditions: i) Petitioners shall report before the Investigating Officer on every Monday, Wednesday and Saturday, between 10 A.M. and 1 P.M. ii) Petitioners shall not enter the limits of the police station within which the crime is registered, except for compliance of condition no.1. iii) Petitioners shall not influence or intimidate any witness or tamper with the evidence. iv) In case, petitioners are involved in any similar offence, bail is liable to be cancelled. This petition is allowed. vdv K. HEMA, JUDGE