IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN THURSDAY, THE 10TH DECEMBER 2009 / 19TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 7141 of 2009() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.531/2009 OF MANNUTHY POLICE STATION, THRISSUR. .................... PETITIONER/ACCUSED: ------------------------------------ PRINCE, AGED 20 YEARS, S/O. FRANCIS, AMBAZHAKKADAN HOUSE, MADAKKATHARA DESOM, MADAKKATHARA VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.S.RAJEEV RESPONDENT/STATE: ------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM (CRIME NO. 531 OF 2009 OF MANNUTHY POLICE STATION) SRI. TEKCHAND, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T. SANKARAN, J. --------------------------- B.A. No. 7141 of 2009 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 10th day of December, 2009 O R D E R This is an application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner is accused No.1 in Crime No.531/2009 of Mannuthy Police Station, Thrissur. 2. The offence alleged against the petitioner is under Section 392 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The prosecution case is that on 24/9/2009, while the de facto complainant was walking along the side of a road, the accused persons came on a motor bike, stopped near the de facto complainant and snatched away her gold chain weighing 5 sovereigns of gold. The accused persons after committing the offence, escaped on the motor bike. It is stated that they were involved in an accident. The petitioner herein sustained a fracture injury. The petitioner was arrested on 20/10/2009 and he was remanded to judicial custody. 4. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that charge was laid in the case. 5. The petitioner moved an application for bail before the B.A. No. 7141/ 2009 2 learned Sessions Judge. That application was dismissed by the order dated 6/11/2009. One of the reasons for rejecting the Bail Application was that it was reported before the learned Sessions Judge that the petitioner was involved in number of similar offences. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that this is an erroneous statement and that the petitioner is not involved in any other offence. 6. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the petitioner is not involved in any other offence of similar nature. 7. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, the duration of the judicial custody undergone by the petitioner and the nature of the offence, I am of the view that bail can be granted to the petitioner. 8. The petitioner shall be released on bail on his executing bond for Rs.25,000/- with two solvent sureties each for the like amount to the satisfaction of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class-III, Thrissur subject to the following conditions:- A) The petitioner shall appear before the Station House Officer, Mannuthy Police Station between 9 A.M. and 11 A.M. on every Monday, until further orders. B.A. No. 7141/ 2009 3 B) The petitioner shall not try to influence the prosecution witnesses or tamper with the evidence. C) The petitioner shall not commit any offence or indulge in any prejudicial activity while on bail. D) In case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, the bail shall be liable to be cancelled. The Bail Application is allowed as above. K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE scm