IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN THURSDAY, THE 18TH AUGUST 2011 / 27TH SRAVANA 1933 Bail Appl..No. 6307 of 2011() ----------------------------- (CRIME NO.266/2011 OF AREACODE POLICE STATION IN MALAPPURAM DISTRICT) .................... (S): PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.6 ------------------------------------------- SUDHEESHKUMAR P., S/O. SWAMINATHAN, AGED 32 YEARS, PANAYAN HOUSE, PAPPINISSERY, KANNUR. BY ADV. SRI.K.C.SANTHOSHKUMAR SMT.K.K.CHANDRALEKHA SRI.GOPAKUMAR G. (ALUVA) RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT -------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MANJERI, THROUGH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.V.TEKCHAND THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. --------------------------------------- B.A.No.6307 of 2011 --------------------------------------- Dated this the 18th day of August, 2011 ORDER This application has been filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking pre arrest bail. Petitioner is the 6th accused (A6) in crime No.266/2011 of Areacode Police Station registered for offences punishable under Section 395 and 120 B read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The prosecution case is that while the defacto complainant with another was riding on a motor bike with cash they were followed in two vehicles by the accused, pursuant to the conspiracy hatched by such accused to rob them of the cash, and one of the vehicles dashed against the motor bike and when the riders fell down on the pretext to taking them to hospital such riders were taken in one of the vehicles and, later, of in the way, after depriving of the cash possessed by them, they were thrown out of that vehicle. 3. During the course of the investigation of the crime some of the accused, A 1 to A3, were arrested and police recovered a small portion of the amount robbed from the riders of the motor bike. A major portion of the amount, it is B.A.No.6307 of 2011 2 submitted, is still to be recovered. Petitioner herein is stated to be one among the accused who traveled in one of the vehicles involved in the crime. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no specific overt act is imputed against the petitioner and he has been falsely implicated in the crime. Opposing the application the learned Public Prosecutor submits that culpability of the petitioner is borne out by the materials already collected by the police, and his arrest and custodial interrogation is necessary to collect more details of the conspiracy and also to recover the cash robbed of from the riders of the bike. Considering the submissions made by the learned Public Prosecutor and also the petitioner and having regard to the facts and circumstances presented as aforesaid which give strong suspension to doubt, the involvement of the petitioner in the grave offences imputed, I find the petitioner is not entitled to pre arrest bail. sd/- S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE. rkc //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE