IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN TUESDAY, THE 18TH AUGUST 2009 / 27TH SRAVANA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 4641 of 2009 CRIME NO.1187 OF 2009 OF CENTRAL POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NO.1 & 2 ------------------------------------------------ 1. SANDEEP, S/O.SASIDHARA KURUP, KOONAYIL KARA, PARAVOOR VILLAGE, KOLLAM. 2. PRAVEEN @ BINU, S/O.PRASAD, KUMARI BHAVAN, NEDUNGOLAM, PARAVOOR VILLAGE, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.V.VENUGOPALAN NAIR RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT: -------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CENTRAL POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.JIKKU GEORGE THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------ B.A. NO. 4641 OF 2009 ------------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 18th August, 2009 O R D E R This is an application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioners are accused Nos.1 and 2 in Crime No.1187 of 2009 of the Central Police Station, Ernakulam. 2. The offence alleged against the petitioners is under Section 379 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The prosecution case is that on 24.5.2009, a Maruti Zen Stilo car belonging to the de facto complainant, which was parked in the parking area of Kalyan Silk House, Ernakulam, was stolen. It is alleged that accused No.1, who is in-charge of the parking facilities, himself was responsible for facilitating the theft. Accused Nos.1 and 2 were arrested respectively on 7.7.2009 and 3.7.2009 and they are in judicial custody. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the Bail Application and submitted that investigation of the case is not over B.A. NO. 4641 OF 2009 :: 2 :: and that if the petitioners are released on bail at this stage, it would seriously affect the proper investigation of the case. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are not habitual offenders and that there is no justification for the continued detention of the petitioners. 5. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature and gravity of the offence and the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners as well as the learned Public Prosecutor, I am of the view that it is not proper to grant bail to the petitioners at this stage. If the petitioners are granted bail now, it would affect the proper investigation of the case. It is also likely that the petitioners may indulge in influencing or intimidating the witnesses, which would have serious impact on the investigation of the case. For the aforesaid reasons, the bail Application is dismissed. (K.T.SANKARAN) Judge ahz/