IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN FRIDAY, THE 19TH AUGUST 2011 / 28TH SRAVANA 1933 Bail Appl..No. 6576 of 2011() ----------------------------------------- CRMP.NO.2166/2011 of JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF 1ST CLASS COURT-1 PARAVUR CRIME NO.319/2011 OF MUNAMBAM POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT .................... PETITIONER/ ACCUSED NO.4 --------------------------------------------- ARULDAS @ ARUL, S/O.PURUSHAN,AGED 33 YEARS, MANAYATHU VEEDU,MANAYATHUKADU BHAGAM, CHERAI KARA, PALLIPPURAM VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.S.RAJEEV RESPONDENT(S): STATE ------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA,REP.BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM (CRIME NO.319/2011 OF MUNAMBAM POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT). BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.V.MANU THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/08/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: sts S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ------------------------------- B.A.NO.6576 OF 2011 ----------------------------------- Dated this the 19th day of August, 2011 O R D E R This is an application for bail filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. Petitioner is the 4th accused (A4) in crime No.319 of 2011 of Munambam police station registered for the offences punishable under Sections 395 and 342 of the Indian Penal Code. The accused in the case, with an intention to commit dacoity, had enticed the de facto complainant under the guise of having a discussion over the carrying out of some business and, thereafter, wrongfully confining him, they had assaulted and committed the offences, snatched away the mobile phone and also cash kept by him, is the gist of the prosecution case. The learned counsel for the petitioner seeks an adjournment with the submission that the de facto complainant is prepared to file a statement that the parties have settled the matter. It is brought B.A.NO.6576/2011 2 to my notice by the learned public prosecutor that the application for bail moved by another accused (A5) in the crime, after taking note of the facts and circumstances involved in the case, has already been dismissed by this Court by order dated 18.08.2011 in B.A.No.5348 of 2011. The learned Magistrate had also stated that in the report filed in the case among other grounds opposing the release of the petitioner it had been stated that he is a habitual offender, and involved in other serious crimes pending before the Munambam police station. Whatever that be, adjournment requested for, on the premise that the matter is settled by the de facto complainant, at any rate, is no ground for releasing the petitioner, when he stands implicated of grave offence under Section 395 of the IPC. Offence is primarily against the society and not against the individual. There is no merit in the application, and it is dismissed. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN JUDGE prp B.A.NO.6576/2011 2