IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN TUESDAY, THE 13TH OCTOBER 2009 / 21ST ASWINA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 5798 of 2009 CRIME NO.274 OF 2009 OF VANDANMEDU POLICE STATION PETITIONERS: ACCUSED --------------------------- 1. P.J.VARGHESE, S/O.JOSEPH, PALLIPURATH HOUSE, KATTAPPANA KARA, KATTAPPANA VILLAGE, UDUMPANCHOLA TALUK. 2. JAIBIN VARGHESE, S/O.VARGHESE PALLIPPURATH HOUSE, DO..DO.. 3. JIBIN VARGHESE, S/O.VARGHESE PALLIPURATH HOUSE.DO..DO.. BY ADV. SRI.T.V.GEORGE SRI.JIMMY GEORGE (THADATHIL) RESPONDENT: COMPLAINANT: --------------- STATE OF KERALA REP BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.M.S.BREEZ THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------ B.A. NO. 5798 OF 2009 ------------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 13th day of October, 2009 O R D E R Apprehending arrest in Crime No.274 of 2009 of Vandanmedu Police Station, Idukki District, on an accusation of having committed non- bailable offence under Section 379 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, the petitioners have filed this Bail Application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. It is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that petitioners 1 and 2, namely, P.J.Varghese and Jaibin Varghese, are not involved in the offence and they are not accused in the crime. It is also submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that there is no intention to arrest petitioners 1 and 2. This submission is recorded. The Bail Application is closed in so far as it relates to petitioners 1 and 2. 3. In so far as the third petitioner (fifth accused) is concerned, the learned Public Prosecutor submitted that he is a habitual offender. The subject matter of the theft is a motor bike. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, the B.A. NO. 5798 OF 2009 :: 2 :: nature and gravity of the allegations levelled against the third petitioner and the attendant circumstances, I am of the view that the third petitioner is not entitled to the discretionary relief under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Accordingly the Bail Application is dismissed in so far as it relates to the third petitioner. (K.T.SANKARAN) Judge ahz/