IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN THURSDAY, THE 3RD DECEMBER 2009 / 12TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 6874 of 2009() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.99/2007 OF PULPALLY POLICE STATION, WAYANAD PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 2 AND 3 ----------------------------------------------- 1. THULASI @ THULASIDAS, S/O.SREEDHARAN PILLAI,MUNDANPALLIYIL HOUSE, ALAKKODE AMSOM,NELLIPARA DESOM. 2. SURESH BABU,S/O.BALAKRISHNAN, VADAKKEKARA HOUSE,ALAKKODE AMSOM, NELLIPARA DESOM. BY ADV. SRI.V.BINOY RAM RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT -------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.M.S.BREEZ THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. --------------------------------------------- B.A.No.6874 of 2009 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 3rd day of December, 2009 ORDER This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioners are accused Nos.2 and 3 in Crime No.99 of 2007 of Pulppally Police Station, Wayanad District. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioners are under Sections 457, 380 and 461 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The prosecution case is that on 8.4.2007, the accused persons broke open the door of the house of the de facto complainant, during night and committed theft of jewellery and other valuable items. 4. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the petitioners are involved in other crimes of similar nature registered at Mananthavady Police Station. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the first accused was a member of the Communist Party of India (Marxist) and recently, he left that party and joined the Bharathiya Janatha Party. Only on account of political reasons, BA No.6874/2009 2 all these cases are foisted against them. 6. Prima facie, I am of the view that there are materials to connect the petitioners with the offence. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the finger prints from the place of occurrence taken by the investigating agency tallied with the finger prints of the first accused. 7. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature and gravity of the offence and the allegations levelled against the petitioners, I do not think that this is a fit case where anticipatory bail can be granted to the petitioners. The petitioners are not entitled to get the discretionary relief under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. If the petitioners are released on bail, it would affect the proper investigation of the case. For the aforesaid reasons, the Bail Application is dismissed. K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE csl