IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN MONDAY, THE 9TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 18TH KARTHIKA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 6450 of 2009() ------------------------------------ CRIME NO. 783/2009 OF KAYAMKULAM POLICE STATION ..................... PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 TO 3 : ---------------------------------------------- 1. NIRDHA, AGED 29 YEARS, PUTHENKANDATHIL, KAYAMKULAM MURI. 2. SHAJI, AGED 32 YEARS, PUTHENKANDAM, KAYAMKULAM. 3. NOUSHAD, AGED 28 YEARS, KOCHUKAITHOLIL, KAYAMKULAM MURI. BY ADV. SMT.A.SALINI LAL RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT: ---------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KAYAMKULAM. BY SRI. M.S.BREEZ PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T. SANKARAN, J. --------------------------- B.A. No. 6450 of 2009 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 9th day of November, 2009 O R D E R This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioners are accused Nos. 1 to 3 in Crime No. 783/2009 of Kayamkulam Police Station. 2. The offence alleged against the petitioners is under Section 394 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The prosecution case is that while the defacto complainant came out of a bar hotel, the accused persons assaulted him and robbed a gold bracelet, gold chain and Rs. 1500/- from the defacto complainant. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is nothing to connect the petitioners with the offence and that the case was foisted against them. Prima facie, I am not inclined to accept this contention. 5. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the first accused is involved in eight other criminal cases including offence under Section 394 of the Indian Penal Code. B.A. No. 6450 of 2009 2 4. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature and gravity of the offence and allegations levelled against the petitioners, I am of the view that the petitioners are not entitled to the discretionary relief under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Bail Application is accordingly dismissed. K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE ln