IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN THURSDAY, THE 8TH OCTOBER 2009 / 16TH ASWINA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 5766 of 2009() ------------------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN BA.3952/2009 Dated 22/07/2009 CMP.2660/2009 of J.M.F.C.,KUNNAMANGALAM CRIME NO.307/2009 OF KUNNAMANGALAM POLICE STATION, KOZHIKODE .................... PETITIONERS/ACCUSED: --------------------------------------- 1. THENMOZHI, W/O.CHANDRU, AGED 30 YEARS, PALANI AGRAVARAM, POLLACHI, NOW RESIDING AT KOLLAMUKKU, KOYILANDY-(CORRECT ADDRESS: PALANI ADIVARAM, PALANI). 2. DEVI, W/O.VIJI, AGED 28 YEARS, PALANI AGRAVARAM, POLLACHI, NOW RESIDING AT KOLLAMUKKU, KOYILANDY-(CORRECT ADDRESS: PALANI ADIVARAM, PALANI). BY ADV. SRI.R.SUDHISH SMT.M.MANJU RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT: -------------------------------------------- THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, KUNNAMANGALAM POLICE STATION, KOZHIKODE, THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. SRI. M.S. BREEZ, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T. SANKARAN, J. --------------------------- B.A. No. 5766 of 2009 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 8th day of October, 2009 O R D E R This is an application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Petitioners are accused Nos.1 and 2 in Crime No.307/2009 of Kunnamangalam Police Station, Kozhikode. 2. The offence alleged against the petitioners is under Section 392 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The petitioners had filed B.A. No. 3952/2009, which was dismissed by me by the order dated 22/07/2009. The relevant portion of the order reads as follows: “The prosecution case is that while the defacto complainant was travelling in an autorickshaw, the petitioners requested for a lift. When the autorickshaw reached Mukkam Road Junction, the petitioners snatched away the gold chain of the defacto complainant and ran away. On making a hue and cry by the defacto complainant, local people chased the petitioners and they were apprehended. On arrest, B.A. No. 5766/2009 2 they were produced before the learned Magistrate, who remanded them to judicial custody. The application for bail moved before the learned Magistrate was dismissed by the detailed order dated 9/7/2009. The learned Magistrate held that charge was laid in the case and that the trial of the case could be expedited. It is also noticed therein that the petitioners belong to Tamil Nadu and if they are released on bail at this stage, they would not be available for trial. Cogent reasons are stated for denying bail. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not think that the petitioners can be released on bail at this stage. Learned Magistrate would make every effort to expedite the trial and dispose of the case within a period of three months. The Bail Application is accordingly dismissed.” 4. Thereafter, the second accused filed B.A. No.4351/2009, which was dismissed by the order dated B.A. No. 5766/2009 3 3/8/2009. 5. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the trial is in progress. Nine witnesses were examined in the case. The case is now posted to 9/10/2009 for examination of the remaining witnesses. In these circumstances, I do not think that the petitioners can be released on bail as requested. The Bail Application is accordingly dismissed. K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE scm