IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN THURSDAY, THE 15TH DECEMBER 2011 / 24TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 Bail Appl..No. 10253 of 2011 CRIME NO.210 OF 2011 OF MANKADA POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM. PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.3: -------------------------------------------- SONY GEORGE, AGED 28 YEARS, S/O.GEORGE, ARATTUKULAM HOUSE, MARARIKKULAM P.O., MARARIKKULAM NORTH VILLAGE, S.L.PURAM (VIA), ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.C.S.MANU RESPONDENT: COMPLAINANT: --------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MANKADA POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT (REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.) PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.K.K.RAJEEV THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/12/2011, ALONGWITH B.A.NO.10274 OF 2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------ Bail Appl. NOS.10253 & 10274 OF 2011 ------------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 15th day of December, 2011 O R D E R These are applications for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner in B.A.No.10253 of 2011 is accused No.3 while the petitioner in B.A.No.10274 of 2011 is accused No.6 in Crime No.210 of 2011 of Mankada Police Station, Malappuram District. 2. The offence alleged against the accused is under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The prosecution case is the following : The accused persons belong to different places. They were in search of iridium which is very valuable in open market. Most of the accused believed that in the Thazhikakkudam of temples, iridium will be available. They tried their level best to get Thazhikakkudams in two places in Karnataka State. They expected the co-operation of Adivasis, but they did not get it. Therefore, all their attempts were futile. Then they B.A. NOS.10253 & 10274 OF 2011 :: 2 :: turned their search to Kerala State. It was believed by the accused that Thazhikakkudam in the very old temple at Mankada, where the offence was allegedly committed, would contain iridium. The temple is a very ancient temple, more than 350 years old. It belongs to a Namboothiri family. Investigation revealed that Pooja in the temple would be only in the morning. The allegation is that on 22.9.2011 at about 7.30 P.M., the de facto complainant and his friends, while going through the pathway near the temple, heard some noises inside the temple. They went to the temple with lighted torches. They found that two persons were attempting to remove the Thazhikakkudam. On seeing the de facto complainant and others, they came down. The other accused, who were in the Thidappilly, attacked the de facto complainant and his friends. The accused ran away. The matter was informed to the police. By that time, the people of the locality apprehended some of the accused including the petitioners. During the day time on the date of offence the accused persons were roaming around in the locality in a Maruti Omni Van and a Pulsor motor bike and some people in the locality had noticed it. The petitioners were arrested and they were remanded to judicial custody. B.A. NOS.10253 & 10274 OF 2011 :: 3 :: 4. As per the order dated 14.12.2011 in B.A.No.10190 of 2011, bail was granted to accused No.2. 5. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, the duration of the judicial custody undergone by the petitioners, the nature of the offence and the present stage of investigation, I am of the view that bail can be granted to the petitioners. 6. The petitioners shall be released on bail on their executing bond for `25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) each with two solvent sureties for the like amount to the satisfaction of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class-II, Perinthalmanna, subject to the following conditions: A) The petitioners shall report before the investigating officer between 9 A.M. and 11 A.M. on all Mondays, till the final report is filed or until further orders; B) The petitioners shall appear before the investigating officer for interrogation as and when required; C) The petitioners shall not try to influence the prosecution witnesses or tamper with the evidence; B.A. NOS.10253 & 10274 OF 2011 :: 4 :: D) The petitioners shall not commit any offence or indulge in any prejudicial activity while on bail; E) In case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, the bail shall be liable to be cancelled. These Bail Applications are allowed as above. (K.T.SANKARAN) Judge ahz/