IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN THURSDAY, THE 22ND SEPTEMBER 2011 / 31ST BHADRA 1933 Bail Appl..No. 7475 of 2011() ----------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 11/08/2011 IN ORDER IN CMP.4197/2011 of J.M.F.C.-I, KANNUR CRIME NO.829/2011 OF KANNUR TOWN POLICE STATION .................... PETITIONER/ACCUSED : --------------------- SANTHOSH, S/O.VIJAYAN, AGED 39 YEARS, PULIKKURUMBA, NADUVIL, TALIPARAMBA. BY ADV. SRI.O.V.MANIPRASAD SRI.SAJU J PANICKER RESPONDENT: COMPLAINANT -------------------------- THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE S.I. OF POLICE, KANNUR TOWN POLICE STATION (CRIME NO.829/2011 OF KANNUR POLICE STATION) REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.V.TEKCHAND THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/09/2011, ALONG WITH B.A.Nos.7520, 7506 AND 7507 OF 2011 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. -------------------------------------------------- Bail Appln.Nos.7475, 7506, 7507 & 7520 of 2011 --------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 22nd day of September, 2011 ORDER The petitioner in all these Bail Applications is one and the same person, namely Santhosh. All the crimes were registered by Kannur Town Police. The details of the cases in which the petitioner prays for bail are shown below:- Sl.No. Crime No. Offences Date of Arrest Bail Appln. No. 1 829/2011 457, 380 & 461 of I.P.C. 08/07/11 7475/2011 2 679/2011 457, 380 & 461 of I.P.C. 08/07/11 7506/2011 3 825/2011 401 of I.P.C. 08/07/11 7507/2011 4 754/2011 457, 380 & 461 of I.P.C. 12/07/11 7520/2011 2. The allegation in Crime No.829 of 2011 is that on 26/06/2011 at 1.30 A.M., the accused persons broke open the shutter of a whole sale textile shop and committed theft of articles worth `49,780/-. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the charge sheet was drawn up on 14/09/2011 and no specific instructions were given as to whether charge sheet was laid. 3. The allegation in Crime No.679 of 2011 is that between the night of 12/06/2011 and early hours of Bail Appln.Nos.7475, 7506, 7507 & 7520 of 2011 : 2 : 13/06/2011, the accused persons broke open the shop of the de facto complainant and committed theft of re-charge coupons and cash causing a loss of `.30,000/-. After completing the investigation, charge sheet was laid on 28/07/2011 before the court of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class-I, Kannur and the case was numbered as C.C.No.483 of 2011. 4. The allegation in Crime No.825 of 2011 is that on 08/07/2011 at 2.30 A.M., the accused persons were found in an abandoned room in the old Bus stand at Kannur, making preparations for committing theft. 300 metres of electric wire and electric cutting machine were found in the possession of the petitioner. After completing the investigation, charge sheet was laid before the court of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class-I, Kannur. 5. The allegation in Crime No.754 of 2011 is that between the night of 25/06/2011 and early hours of 26/06/2011, the accused persons broke open the shop of the de facto complainant and committed theft of two computer monitors and cash of `.3,500/-. Charge sheet was laid in the case and it was taken on file as C.C.No.496 of 2011 on the file Bail Appln.Nos.7475, 7506, 7507 & 7520 of 2011 : 3 : of the court of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class-I, Kannur. 6. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the petitioner is a previous convict in several cases and he is a habitual offender. The dates on which the alleged offences were committed, the nature of the offences, the alleged method of commission of the offences, all would prima facie indicate that the accused persons are professionals in the field. 7. If the petitioner is released on bail, it is most likely that he would indulge in similar criminal activities to the detriment of the business community and the general public. It is also most likely that the petitioner would make himself scarce and flee from justice. In the facts and circumstances, I am of the view that the petitioner is not entitled to the discretionary relief. For the aforesaid reasons, the Bail Applications are dismissed. K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE skj