IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN THURSDAY, THE 28TH JANUARY 2010 / 8TH MAGHA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 365 of 2010() ----------------------------------------- (CRIME NO.831/2007 OF CHALAKUDY POLICE STATION,THRISSUR DISTRICT) APPLICANTS/ACCUSED NO.7 ------------------------------------------- DIBIN, S/O.BABU, MADATHIPARAMBIL HOUSE,ELINJIPRA DESOM, PARIYARAM. BY ADVS. MR.P.VIJAYA BHANU, MR. VIPIN NARAYAN. RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT: --------------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTING THE S.I.OF POLICE, CHALAKUDY POLICE STATION. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR. TEKCHAND THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss K.T. SANKARAN, J. --------------------------- B.A. No. 365 of 2010 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 28th day of January, 2010 O R D E R The petitioner had filed B.A.No.7285/2009, which was disposed of as per the order dated 14/12/2009. For the sake of convenience, the order dated 14/12/2009 is extracted below: “ This is an application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner is accused No.7 in Crime No. 831/2007 of Chalakudy Police Station, Thrissur. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 143, 147, 148, 120 B, 201 and 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, Section 27 of the Arms Act and Sections 3 & 5 of the Explosive Substances Act. 3. The date of occurrence was on 26/12/2007. The petitioner was arrested on 20/4/2008. He was released on bail on 24/7/2008. Certain conditions were imposed while granting bail. After the petitioner was released on bail, he got himself involved in two B.A. No. 365/2010 2 other cases and thereby violated the conditions imposed while granting bail. Accordingly, on the application made by the investigating officer, bail was cancelled. On 17/2/2009, the petitioner was arrested and he was remanded to judicial custody. It is submitted that the petitioner moved an application before the learned Magistrate for bail, which was rejected. 4. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the petitioner had filed B.A. No.4192/2009 before this Court for bail and it was later withdrawn by the petitioner on 20/08/2009. The learned Public Prosecutor also submitted that the petitioner is involved in Crime No.127/2009 of Kondotty Police Station, wherein the offences alleged are under Sections 363 and 397 of the Indian Penal Code. He is also involved in Crime No.398/2008 of Vengara Police Station for the offence under Section 399 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner is also involved in Crime B.A. No. 365/2010 3 No.690/2008 of Koratty Police Station for the offences under Sections 454 and 380 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Since the petitioner is involved in three crimes, wherein serious offences are alleged against him and since the petitioner was found to have violated specific conditions imposed while granting bail, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner at this stage. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is undergoing detention in respect of the crimes registered in the year 2007. The investigating officer has not filed final report so far. 5. One of the reasons why the investigating officer could not file the final report is that the petitioner made himself scarce and violated the conditions imposed while granting bail. Whatever be the reason, the learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the final report will be filed before the appropriate court on or before 15/01/2010. B.A. No. 365/2010 4 The submission made by the learned Public Prosecutor is recorded and the Bail Application is dismissed. If the final report is not so filed as submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor, the petitioner would be free to approach this Court after 15/01/2010.” 2. This Bail Application was filed on the ground that no final report was filed by the investigation officer before 15/01/2010, as mentioned in the order dated 14/12/2009. 3. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that after completing the investigation, charge sheet was filed before the Court of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Chalakudy on 22/1/2010. The delay of one week is explained by the learned Public Prosecutor stating that the case involves the offence under the Explosive Substances Act, for which the sanction of the District Collector was necessary. The District Collector was on leave and sanction was granted only on 20/1/2010. On 22/1/2010, charge sheet was filed. 4. In the facts and circumstances of the case and the B.A. No. 365/2010 5 facts and circumstances mentioned in the order dated 14/12/2009, I do not think that bail can be granted to the petitioner. The Bail Application is accordingly dismissed. K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE scm