IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN WEDNESDAY, THE 31ST MARCH 2010 / 10TH CHAITHRA 1932 Bail Appl..No. 1074 of 2010() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.1728/2009 OF KALAMASSERY POLICE STATION .................... PETITIONERS(S): ACCUSED --------------------------- 1. DILEEP, AGED 20 YEARS, S/O.MONY, KOORAMAYAYAKOVIL THERUVE NOW RESIDING AT C/O.SARASAMMA, ESI DISPENSARY ELOOR. 2. RENJITH KUMAR, AGED 20 YEARS, S/O.S.T.RAJU, DOOR NO.994/51 PASUMBAN STREET, MADHURA DISTRICT ANNA NAGAR- NOW RESIDING AT C/O.SARASAMMA ESI DISPENSARY,ELOOR. BY ADV. SRI.S.RAJEEV RESPONDENT(S): STATE -------------------- STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.I.V.PRAMOD THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 31/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. --------------------------------------------- B.A.No.1074 of 2010 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 31st day of March, 2010 O R D E R This is an application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioners are the accused in Crime No.1728 of 2009 of Kalamassery Police Station. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioners are under Sections 458, 392 and 511 of Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The prosecution case is the following: On 7.12.2009, at about 1 A.M., the accused persons stealthily entered into the house of the de facto complainant. On hearing some noise, the de facto complainant contacted her father over mobile phone. Her father was residing in the neighbourhood. She also informed one Jamaluddin, her neighbour, over mobile phone. The petitioners, after entering into the house, tried to enter into the bed room of the de facto complainant. It was bolted from inside. The accused persons threatened the de facto complainant to death and she was forced to open the door. Under the knife BA No.1074/2010 2 point, the de facto complainant had to give all her ornaments and cash to the petitioners. The petitioners attempted to rape the de facto complainant. By that time, the neighbours had surrounded the house. On hearing voice of the persons who assembled near the house, the petitioners tried to escape. But, they were caught red handed by the people who surrounded the house. The police was informed and the petitioners were arrested. They were remanded to judicial custody. 4. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that after completing the investigation, charge sheet was filed. The petitioners belong to Tamil Nadu. They were doing some daily wages work in the neighbourhood of the de facto complainant. The de facto complainant and her minor children were the only inmates in the house. Her husband is employed abroad. The petitioners had broke open the house of the de facto complainant knowing fully well that her husband or other male members were not available in the house. 5. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that if the petitioners are released on bail, there is every likelihood of the petitioners making themselves scarce and it would not be BA No.1074/2010 3 possible to secure their presence before court at the time of trial. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that continued detention of the petitioners is not at all necessary, since the charge sheet has already been filed. It is submitted that the petitioners are prepared to comply with any conditions that may be imposed by the court. It is also submitted that though the petitioners belong to another State, they were residing in Kerala for the last several months. 7. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case and the manner in which the offence is alleged to have been committed, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioners at this stage. The Bail Application filed by the petitioners was dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge by the order dated 5th February, 2010. All the facts and circumstances were taken note of by the learned Sessions Judge and it was held that it is not proper to release the petitioners on bail and they would make themselves scarce, if bail is granted to them. The reasons stated by the learned Sessions Judge for denying bail continue to exist even now and there is no change of circumstances. I am also in agreement with the reasons stated by the learned Sessions Judge BA No.1074/2010 4 for denying bail to the petitioners. For the aforesaid reasons, the Bail Application is dismissed. The learned Sessions Judge shall make every endeavour to expedite the trial of the case, as the petitioners are under judicial custody. K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE csl