IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN MONDAY, THE 18TH JANUARY 2010 / 28TH POUSHA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 163 of 2010() ------------------------------- CRIME NO. 499/2009 OF NEDUPUZHA POLICE STATION, THRISSUR DISTRICT ......................... PETITIONER/IST ACCUSED : --------------------------------- ANEESH, S/O.KRISHNANKUTTY, KEEZHIL HOUSE, KOORKKENCHERRY, VADOOKKARA, THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.M.SHAJU PURUSHOTHAMAN RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT : ----------------------------------- STATE, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, REPRENSENTING THE S.I. OF POLICE, NEDUPUZHA. BY SRI. V. TEKCHAND PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/01/2010 ALONG WITH B.A.NO. 164/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T. SANKARAN, J. --------------------------- B.A. No. 163 & 164 of 2010 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 18th day of January, 2010 O R D E R Both these Bail Applications are filed by Aneesh, who is second accused in Crime Nos.490/2009 and 499/2009. Bail Application No. 163/2009 relates to Crime No. 499/2009, while Bail Application No. 164/2009 relates to Crime No.490/2009 of Nedupuzha Police Station, Thrissur District. 2. The offence alleged in Crime No.499/2009 against the petitioner are under Sections 341, 324, 394 and 308 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act. 3. The offence alleged in Crime No.490/2009 against the petitioner are under Sections 452, 384, 326 and 308 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 4. The prosecution case in Crime No.499/2009 is that the accused persons had hired the autorickshaw driven by the de facto complainant and after going for a distance, the accused persons caught hold of the de facto complainant by his neck and pushed B.A. No. 163 & 164 of 2010 2 him aside and robbed a sum of Rs. 420/-, a Mobile Phone and a wrist watch from the de facto complainant in that process. It is alleged that second accused used a knife and caused injuries and other accused also caused injuries to the de facto complainant. 5. The allegation in Crime No.490/2009 is that on 02.11.2009, the accused persons trespassed into a shed and committed the offence of extortion of a sum of Rs. 40/- was forcibly taken from the de facto complainant. Similarly, a sum of Rs. 3,200/- and a Mobile Phone were taken forcibly from the friend of the de facto complainant. It is also alleged that for committing the offence of extortion, accused persons used weapons and caused grievous injuries to the de facto complainant and his friend. 6. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that apart from these two cases, there is one more case registered by Nedupuzha Police Station, in which the petitioner is involved. 7. The investigation is not over. 8. Taking into account the nature and gravity of the offence and the fact that the petitioner is involved in similar offences, which affect the safety and security of the general public and also B.A. No. 163 & 164 of 2010 3 the fact that may have on the society, on the release of the petitioner from jail, I am of the view that at this stage, it would be proper to grant bail to the petitioner. If the petitioner is released on bail, there is every likelihood of the petitioner making himself scarce and he is indulge in activities to the detriment of the general public. For the aforesaid reasons, the Bail Applications are dismissed. K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE ln