IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN TUESDAY, THE 26TH MAY 2009 / 5TH JYAISHTA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 2641 of 2009() ----------------------------- SC.300/2008 of ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT (ADHOC), MANJERI PETITIONER ------------------------------ 1. RADHAKRISHNAN.N.,(A3), S/O. KUNHIKRISHNAN NAIR, NANGALATH HOUSE, MOODADI.P.O., KOYILANDI. 2. KANAKESWARI, A4), D/O. DAMODARAN NAMBIAR, MALOR HOUSE, KODENCHERI.P.O., PURAMERI, VADAKARA. (WHO RESIDED IN A RENTED HOUSE AT VIRIPPIL BAZAR. CHELAVOOR AMSOM, KOZHIKODE) NOW 1 IN DISTRICT PRISON, KOZHIKODE AND 2 (FEMALE WITH CHILD) IN BY ADV. SRI.MANJERI SUNDERRAJ SMT.K.K.PREETHA RESPONDENT(S): --------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.C.K.SURESH THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26/05/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. ----------------------------------------- B.A.No. 2641 of 2009 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 26th May, 2009 O R D E R Accused 3 and 4 in Sessions Case No.300/08 on the file of the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track, Manjeri have filed this bail application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. The offences alleged against the accused persons, five in number, are under Sections 120B, 454, 457, 461, 380, 411 and 201 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of the Explosive Substances Act. The case is popularly known as “Chelambra Bank Robbery case”. 3. The accused persons had moved bail applications earlier before this Court. Accused 3 and 4 filed B.A.No.3274 of 2008, which was dismissed on 28.5.2008. Later the fourth accused filed B.A.No.4348/2008, which was dismissed on 8th July, 2008. The contention raised by the fourth accused that she is a lady and therefore, she is entitled to get anticipatory BA.2641/09 2 bail, particularly when she has to look after a baby of less than one year old, was also considered by this Court on earlier occasion and the plea for bail was rejected. 4. In the order dated 28.5.2008 the facts and circumstances of the case were considered for the limited purpose of considering the bail application and it was held that it is not safe to release the accused on bail. The antecedents of the accused were also taken note of. It has come out that accused 1 and 2, who were granted bail in another case had jumped jail and became scarce. The prosecution case that all the accused were instrumental in taking rented building and making operation for the offences was also taken note of while rejecting bail on earlier occasions. 5. It is submitted by learned counsel for petitioners as well as the learned Director General of Prosecution that the case was posted for evidence on earlier occasions. According to the prosecution, on all occasions, when the case was posted for trial, the accused persons tried to protract the trial under some pretext or other and at no point of time the Prosecutor sought for adjournment. Now the case is posted to 29.6.2009. BA.2641/09 3 6. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, the orders passed by this Court on earlier occasions and also taking note of the fact that the case has reached at the trial stage, I do not think it is proper to release the petitioners on bail at present. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that the fifth accused was arrested recently and that it would take some time to start the trial. The learned Director General of Prosecution assured that all steps would be taken promptly by the prosecution for an early trial and disposal of the case. The bail application is accordingly dismissed. K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE vgs.