IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN MONDAY, THE 29TH MARCH 2010 / 8TH CHAITHRA 1932 Bail Appl..No. 1819 of 2010() ---------------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 15/02/2010 IN CMP 246/2010 IN CC.671/2009 of J.M.F.C.-I MUVATUPUZHA CRIME NO. 183/2005 OF PIRAVOM POLICE STATION .................... PETITIONER/ACCUSED: ---------------------------- SELVARAJ @ SELVAKUMAR, S/O.SUBRAMANYAN, THRIKKAYIL VEEDU, KOLANI KARA, THODUPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE SEBASTIAN RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT: ----------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. BY SRI. V.TEKCHAND PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29/03/2010 ALONG WITH B.A.NO. 1821/2010 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T. SANKARAN, J. --------------------------- B.A. Nos.1819, 1821, 1823, 1824, 1825, 1826, 1827 & 1828 of 2010 ----------------------------------------------- Dated this the 29th day of March, 2010 O R D E R The petitioner in all these Bail Applications is Selvaraj, who is the accused in eight cases. Details regarding Bail Application number, Crime number, offence alleged, the date of occurrence, the date of arrest and case number are shown below: B.A. No. Crime No. Offences alleged Date of occurrence Date of arrest Case No. 1819/2010 183/2005 of Piravom Police Station 454, 461 & 380 of the Indian Penal Code 21/8/2005 26/10/2009 C.C.No.671/2009 of JFCM, Muvattupuzha 1821/2010 164/2005 of Piravom Police Station. 454, 461 & 380 of the Indian Penal Code 17/2/2005 26/10/2009 C.C.No.672/2009 of JFCM, Muvattupuzha 1823/2010 205/2005of Piravom Police Station. 457, 461 & 380 of the Indian Penal Code 24/10/2005 26/10/2009 C.C.No.84/2010 of JFCM, Muvattupuzha 1824/2010 157/2005 of Piravom Police Station. 457, 461 & 380 of the Indian Penal Code 03/07/2005 26/10/2009 C.C.No.673/2009 of JFCM, Muvattupuzha 1825/2010 175/2006 of Muvattupuz ha Police Station. 457, 461 & 380 of the Indian Penal Code 25/12/2006 16/10/2009 C.C.No.675/2009 of JFCM, Muvattupuzha 1826/2010 592/2005 of Muvattupuz ha Police Station. 457,461 & 380 of the Indian Penal Code 09/11/2005 16/10/2009 C.C.No.605/2009 of JFCM, Muvattupuzha B.A. No.1819 of 2010 and connected cases 2 B.A. No. Crime No. Offences alleged Date of occurrence Date of arrest Case No. 1827/2010 18/2006 of Muvattupuz ha Police Station. 457, 461 & 380 of the Indian Penal Code 7/11/2006 16/10/2009 C.C.No.606/2009 of JFCM, Muvattupuzha 1828/2010 16/2006 of Vazhakkula m Police Station. 454, 461 & 380 of the Indian Penal Code 21/2/2006 16/10/2009 C.C.No.676/2009 of JFCM, Muvattupuzha 2. From the above details, the nature of the crime and the period during which the crimes were allegedly committed are fairly clear. The petitioner could not be arrested till 16/10/2009, as he was not available. The petitioner moved for bail before the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Muvattupuzha. Those applications were dismissed by the learned Magistrate. 3. The learned Public Prosecutors very vehemently opposed the Bail Applications. They submitted that the petitioner was previously convicted and sentenced in five cases. The details of the same are shown below: Serial No. Crime No. Sentenced to 1 148/1997 of Gandhinagar Police Station, Kottayam. One year 2 7/1998 of Gandhinagar Police Station, Kottayam. One year 3 54/1997 of Gandhinagar Police Station, Kottayam. Six years 4 19/1998 of Gandhinagar Police Station, Kottayam. Three years 5 283/1996 of Kuravilangad Police Station Four years B.A. No.1819 of 2010 and connected cases 3 4. It is also submitted that except in one case, the trial is going on in all other cases. The learned Public Prosecutors submitted that the recovery under Section 27 of the Evidence Act was made in all the cases. In some cases, the recovery of gold was made from Tamil Nadu. It is submitted that the father of the petitioner belongs to Tamil Nadu. 5. The offences alleged against the petitioner are grave in nature. He is involved in eight crimes. He is the previous convict in five cases, where the offences are of similar nature. If the petitioner is released on bail at this stage, before the trial is over in all the cases, it is almost sure that he will indulge in similar criminal activities, causing misery to the law abiding citizens. The learned Public Prosecutors submitted that the petitioner is an experienced and skilled person in committing theft. 6. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not think that it is proper and just to release the petitioner on bail. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the trial of the cases is not going on with the required speed and promptness and that the petitioner would be put to irreparable injury, if the trial of the cases is delayed. It is only sufficient to mention that the trial of the cases B.A. No.1819 of 2010 and connected cases 4 will be done, taking note of the fact that the petitioner is an under trial prisoner. For the aforesaid reasons, the Bail Applications are dismissed. K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE scm