IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI FRIDAY, THE 1ST JANUARY 2010 / 11TH POUSHA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 7694 of 2009() ----------------------------- CRMP.9731/2009 of J.M.F.C.-II,THRISSUR CRIME NO.11/2009 OF NEDUPUZHA POLICE STATION, THRISSUR .................... PETITIONERS: ACCUSED2,5,9 TO 12 ------------------------------ 1. ANEESH @ PAMBU ANEESH S/O.VIJAYAN, VATTAPARMABIL HOUSE, KOTTAI DESOM, KALLOOR VILLAGE, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 2. PRAJITH @ KANNAPPAN, S/O. PREMAN VADAKKEKATTIL HOUSE, AROOR DESOM KALLOOR VILLAGE, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 3. SAJEEVAN, S/O.MOHANAN KAROTT HOUSE, MANNEMPETTA DESOM AMBALLOOR VILLAGE, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 4. JINTO, S/O.JAISON KUNDUKULAM HOUSE, KALLUR, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 5. JINESH, S/O.KUMARAN, NEDUMBULLY HOUSE NEMMANIKKARA, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 6. RAJEEV, S/O.RAJAN VATTAPARAMBIL HOUSE, AMBALLUR, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.N.AJITH SRI.R.SURAJ KUMAR RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM. 2. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE NEDUPUZHA, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.M.K.PUSHPALATHA THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: P.Q.BARKATH ALI, J ----------------------------- B.A No. 7694 of 2009 ------------------------------ Dated this the 1st day of January, 2010. O R D E R The petitioners are the accused 2,5,9 to 12 in Crime No.11 of 2008 of Nedupuzha Police Station coming within the jurisdiction of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Thrissur. 2. The allegation against the petitioners is that in furtherance of their common intention they wrongfully restrained the defacto complainant while he was traveling on a motor cycle bearing registration No.KL.8.S 4265 on 4.1.2008 at about 10.45 PM and assaulted the defacto complainant with iron pipe and committed theft of gold ornaments weighing 2.690 Kgs. worth Rs.26,90,000/- at Kannimangalam and thus committed offence punishable under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The petitioners 1 to 3 were arrested on 13.10.2009 and petitioners 4 to 6 were arrested on 24.9.2009 and are in remand thereafter. The trial court dismissed their bail applications by order dated 16.10.2009. 4. It is alleged by the petitioners is that the petitioners are B.A No. 7694 of 2009 2 innocent of the offence alleged against them that they were arrested about nine months after the incident and therefore they may be released on bail. 5. Notice given to the learned Public Prosecutor. The petition is opposed by the Public Prosecutor. The Public Prosecutor submitted that if bail is granted to the petitioners stringent conditions may be imposed. 6. The petitioners 4 to 6 were arrested on 24.9.2009. More than 90 days they were in custody. The petitioners 1 to 3 were arrested on 13.10.2009. They are in remand for more than 75 days. The Public Prosecutor submitted that charge sheet has not been filed before the Lower Court. Therefore I feel that petitioner can be released on bail, but subject to conditions. 7. In the result, the petition is allowed. The petitioners shall be released on bail on their executing bond for Rs.25,000/- each with two solvent sureties for the like sum to the satisfaction of the trial court on the following conditions: i) The petitioners shall appear before the investigating officer on all Mondays and Saturdays at 10 AM. ii) The petitioners shall produce the attested copies of the B.A No. 7694 of 2009 3 ration card and voters identity card before the trial court. The original of the ration card and voters identity card shall be returned to the petitioners after retaining the attested copies. iii) The petitioners shall not commit similar offences while on bail. iv) Petitioners shall not intimidate the witnesses. v) They shall not leave the jurisdiction of trial court without prior permission. Sd/- P.Q.BARKATH ALI JUDGE //True Copy// PA to Judge ab B.A No. 7694 of 2009 4