IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN THURSDAY, THE 10TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 19TH BHADRA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 5072 of 2009() ---------------------------------------- CRIME NO.368/2009 OF MANNUTHY POLICE STATION, THRISSUR APPLICANT/IST ACCUSED: ----------------------------------------- JAISON,AGED 38 YEARS,S/O.RAPPAI, KORUMBERY HOUSE,MADAIKONAM,MAPRANAM,THRISSUR DIST. BY ADV. SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU SRI.VIPIN NARAYAN RESPONDENT/ COMPLAINANT: ------------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM.REP; BY THE S.I.OF THE POLICE,MANNUTHY POLICE STATION. SRI. M.S. BREEZ, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/09/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T. SANKARAN, J. --------------------------- B.A. No.5072 of 2009 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 10th day of September, 2009 O R D E R This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner is the first accused in Crime No.368/2009 of Mannuthy Police Station, Thrissur. 2. The offence alleged against the petitioner is under Section 394 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The prosecution case is that on 14/07/2009 at 11.50 P.M., the accused persons intercepted the car driven by the defacto complainant in which his relatives were traveling and robbed gold chain, Rs.22,500/- and a mobile phone. 4. The petitioner relies on Annexure A photocopy of the affidavit dated 17/07/2009. Many of the matters mentioned in the F.I Statement and in the further statement before the Police are not dealt with in the affidavit. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am not relying on the affidavit 5. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the B.A. No.5072 /2009 2 petitioner is a habitual offender and he is involved in several cases including a murder case and a case involving the offence under Section 399 of the Indian Penal Code. 6. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I do no think that the petitioner is entitled to the discretionary relief under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Bail Application is accordingly dismissed. K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE scm