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. 7787 of 2009() ----------------------------- CMP.5259/2009 of J.M.F.C.,NEDUMKANDOM (CRIME NO. 362/2009 OF VANDENMEDU POLICE STATION) PETITIONERS: ------------------------------- 1. JAGADEESAN, S/O.KUNJUMON, AGED 37, ALUKKALATHIL VEEDU, CHELLARCOIL KARA, ANAKKARA VILLAGE. 2. JOSHI, S/O.RAJU, AGED 24, PEEDIKAYIL VEEDU, ANAKKARA, 7TH MILE JUNCTION, CHAKKUPALLAM VILLAGE. 3. RATHEESH KRISHNAN, AGED 24, S/O.BALAKRISHNAN, ARIYAKKAL VEEDU, PAMPUPARA KARA, ANAKKARA VILLAGE. 4. JINUMON, S/O.CHACKO JOSEPH, AGED 19, KANNOTTAYIL VEEDU, CHELLARCOIL KARA, DO. 5. MURUKAN, S/O.KAVALKKARAN, AGED 38, THAKIDIYOL VEEDU, DO. BY ADV. SRI.VARGHESE C.KURIAKOSE SRI.ADEEP ANWAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM. 2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VANDANMEDU POLICE STATION, VANDANMEDU. BY P.P. MR. HRITWIK 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. 7787 of 2009 ------------------------------------------------------ Dated: JANUARY 1, 2010 ORDER Petitioners are accused Nos.1 to 5 in Crime No.362 of 2009 of Vandenmedu Police Station in Idukki District which comes within the jurisdiction of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Nedumkandam. 2. The case against the petitioners is that on December 3, 2009 at about 12.30 a.m. they, with the intention to commit decoity, stopped tipper lorry No.KL-37/7388 driven by the de facto complainant and the 4th accused took away Rs.2000/- forcibly from the pocket of the shirt of the de facto complainant at 1st Mile Junction at Chellarcoil Kara in Anakkara village and that thereby committed offence punishable under sec.395 of IPC. The accused persons were arrested on 8.12.2009 and they are in remand thereafter. The trial court dismissed their bail applications. 3. Notice given to the Public Prosecutor. He opposed the bail application. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. 4. For several reasons I am inclined to grant bail to the petitioners. They are in remand from 8.12.2009 onwards. Further, there was considerable delay in reporting the matter to the police. The alleged incident occurred on 3.12.2009 and the same was seen reported to the police only on 7.12.2009. Further, the specific case of BA 7787/09 2 the petitioners is that they are actively engaged in detecting illegal sand mining in that locality and that the persons involved in the illegal sand mining might have fabricated the case against the petitioners. Taking into consideration all these facts, I feel that the petitioners can be released on bail, but on conditions. In the result the petition is allowed. The petitioners shall be released on bail on executing a bond for Rs.25,000/- (twentyfive thousand) each with two solvent sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the lower court on the following conditions:- i. The petitioners shall report before the Investigating Officer on all Mondays at 10 a.m. ii. The petitioners shall not intimidate the witnesses or tamper with the evidence. iii. The petitioners shall co-operate with the investigation of the case. iv. They shall not leave the jurisdiction of the trial court without prior permission. P.Q. BARKATH ALI, JUDGE mt/-