IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN THURSDAY, THE 20TH OCTOBER 2011 / 28TH ASWINA 1933 Bail Appl..No. 8368 of 2011() ----------------------------- CRMP.2880/2011 of DISTRICT COURT, KOTTAYAM CRIME NO.583/2011 OF KOTTAYAM WEST POLICE STATION .................... PETITIONER/1ST ACCUSED : ------------------------- MANOJ XAVIER, S/O.XAVIER, AGED 36 YEARS, E-3-D.D NEST, KALOOR P.O., ERNAKULAM, KOCHI - 17 BY ADV. SRI.K.J.KURIACHAN RESPONDENT: COMPLAINANT -------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KOTTAYAM WEST POLICE STATION THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. STATE PROSECUTOR -SRI.ASIF ALI THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20/10/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. --------------------------------------------- Bail Appln.No.8368 of 2011 ---------------------------------------------- Dated this the 20th day of October, 2011 ORDER This is an application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner is accused No.1 in Crime No.583 of 2011 of Kottayam West Police Station. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 394 and 450 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 5 read with Section 25(1) (a) of the Arms Act. 3. The prosecution case is the following:- On 07/07/2011 at 12.45 P.M., accused Nos.1 and 2 entered into Kunnathukalathil Jewellery at Central Junction, Kottayam. They were received and offered seat in the jewellery. The accused wanted to purchase a bangle. Suddenly accused No.2 took out a gun and aimed at the salesman in the jewellery. He pulled the trigger and fired at the floor. The customers in the shop and staff of the jewellery were asked to sit down on the floor. When two of the customers tried to get up they were compelled to sit down by Bail Appln.No.8368/2011 : 2 : pointing the gun towards them. The accused went to the display counter and robbed gold ornaments worth Rupees 1 ½ crores and escaped. Accused No.2 was arrested, while he was travelling in a bus. The ornaments were recovered from him. On the next day, namely, 08/07/2011, the petitioner was arrested and he was remanded to judicial custody. 4. It is submitted by the learned State Prosecutor that after completing the investigation, charge was filed on 30/09/2011. The learned State Prosecutor submitted that in spite of the filing of the charge sheet, the petitioner is not entitled to be released on bail. 5. The incident took place in Kottayam Town in broad daylight. The staff of the jewellery, customers and several people were put to fear of death by the accused persons and after doing so, they looted the jewellery. 6. The allegations against the accused are very grave in nature. It is submitted by the learned State Prosecutor that the petitioner has no permanent residence as such and he moved from one place to another. He was not in India for quite some time. If the petitioner is granted bail, he would Bail Appln.No.8368/2011 : 3 : flee from justice and it is most likely that the petitioner would try to influence or intimidate the prosecution witnesses and tamper with the evidence. 7. The learned Counsel for the petitioner relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in (2009) 2 SCC 281 Vaman Narain Ghiya v. State of Rajasthan and contended that the Supreme Court laid down the principles for granting bail. 8. In paragraph No.7 of the judgment of the Supreme Court, it is stated thus:- 7. “.............. It has to dovetail two conflicting demands, namely, on the one hand the requirements of the society for being shielded from the hazards of being exposed to the misadventures of a person alleged to have committed a crime; and on the other, the fundamental canon of criminal jurisprudence viz. the presumption of innocence of an accused till he is found guilty.” 9. In Vaman Narain Ghiya's case the appellant was in jail for more than 2 ½ years. His bail application was dismissed by the trail court as well as by the High Court. In spite of the fact that the accused was in jail for more than 2 ½ Bail Appln.No.8368/2011 : 4 : years, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal. 10. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the submissions made by the learned State Prosecutor has great relevance. The matter is now pending in committal proceedings. If the petitioner is released on bail, it is most likely that he would flee from justice and make himself scarce. The offence was committed in broad daylight and several persons were put to fear of death. 11. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner in spite of the fact that the charge was filed after completing the investigation. Accordingly, the Bail Application is dismissed. K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE skj