IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 25TH BHADRA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 5247 of 2009() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.937/09 OF IRINJALAKUDA POLICE STATION PETITIONER (S): ACCUSED 1, 3 & 2 -------------------- 1. SHANAVAS @ NAVAS, AGED 32 YEARS, S/O. KUMMAMKANDATH IBRAHIM, THANISSERY, MANAVALASSERY. 2. RAMACHANDRAN @ VELU, AGED 34 YEARS, S/O. MARATHUVALAPPIL KRISHNAN KUTTY, NEAR THIRUVADI TEMPLE, OORAKAM, 3. SUMESH, AGED 29 YEARS, S/O. SADANANDAN, PERUMBILLY HOUSE, CHEMMANDA, PORATHUSSERY. BY ADV. SRI.A.C.DEVY RESPONDENT(S): --------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.TEKCHAND THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/09/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. --------------------------------------------- B.A.No.5247 of 2009 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 16th day of September, 2009 ORDER This is an application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioners are accused Nos.1, 3 and 2 respectively in Crime No.937 of 2009 of Irinjalakuda Police Station. 2. The offence alleged against the petitioners is under Section 394 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The gist of the prosecution case is the following: The defacto complainant is the Assistant Branch Head of Palani Branch of the Manappuram General Finance Leasing Ltd. Manappuram General Finance Leasing Ltd. has its head office at Valappad in Thrissur District. The defacto complainant came to the head office on 1.8.2009. He was entrusted with a quantity of 180.910 gms of gold for being entrusted to the Pollachi Branch of the company. It is alleged that at about 8.20 P.M., the defacto complainant hired a taxi of which the first accused was the driver. Accused Nos.2 and 3 also joined accused No.1 under the pretext that while coming back from Pollachi, the driver would be alone. After about 45 minutes of journey, the accused BA No.5247/2009 2 persons threatened the defacto complainant at knife point and robbed the gold, Rs.2,500/- and a mobile phone. The petitioners were arrested on 6.8.2009. It is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that the gold was subsequently recovered. 4. The Bail Application is seriously opposed. It is submitted that the first accused is involved in 8 other offences of a similar nature. It is also reported that accused Nos.2 and 3 are not involved any other offence. 5. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, the duration of the judicial custody undergone by the petitioners, the nature of the offence and the criminal antecedents of the first accused, I am not inclined to grant bail to the first accused at this stage. The investigation is in progress. If the first accused is released on bail at this stage, it would affect the proper investigation of the case. It is also most likely, as submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor, that he would involve himself in similar criminal activities. The position of accused Nos.2 and 3 is different. They are not involved in any other offence. They are in judicial custody since 6.8.2009. I am of the view that accused Nos.2 and 3 can be released on bail on stringent conditions. BA No.5247/2009 3 Accused Nos.2 and 3 (Sumesh and Ramachandran @ Velu) shall be released on bail on their executing bond for Rs.50,000/- each with two solvent sureties for the like amount to the satisfaction of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Irinjalakuda, subject to the following conditions: a) Petitioners No.2 and 3 shall report before the investigating officer between 9 A.M. and 11 A.M. on all Mondays, till the final report is filed or until further orders; b) Petitioners No.2 and 3 shall appear before the investigating officer for interrogation as and when required; c) Petitioners No.2 and 3 shall not leave the limits of Irinjalakuda Police Station for a period of one month; d) Petitioners No.2 and 3 shall not try to influence the prosecution witnesses or tamper with the evidence; e) Petitioners No.2 and 3 shall not commit any offence or indulge in any prejudicial activity while on bail; f) In case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, the bail shall be liable to be cancelled. The Bail Application is dismissed in so far as accused No.1 is concerned and allowed in respect of accused Nos.2 and 3. K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE csl