IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN MONDAY, THE 10TH OCTOBER 2011 / 18TH ASWINA 1933 Bail Appl..No. 8050 of 2011() ------------------------- CRMP.3843/2011 of JUDL. MAGI. OF FIRST CLASS-III, KOTTAYAM CRIME NO.583/2011 OF KOTTAYAM WEST POLICE STATION .................... PETITIONER/ACCUSED No.2: ------------------------- MURUKAN, S/O.KARUPPAYYA, C/O. JAMES, RAJAPPARA BHAGAM, SANTHAPARA VILLAGE, NEUMKANDAM, IDUKKI DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.C.A.CHACKO RESPONDENT: COMPLAINANT -------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTING CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KOTTAYAM WEST POLICE STATION, KOTTAYAM, THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. STATE PROSECUTOR SRI.T.ASIF ALI PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.C.K.SURESH THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/10/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. --------------------------------------------- Bail Appln.No.8050 of 2011 ---------------------------------------------- Dated this the 10th day of October, 2011 ORDER This is an application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner is accused No.2 in Crime No.583 of 2011 of Kottayam West Police Station. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 394 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3 read with 25(1)(a) of the Arms Act. 3. The prosecution case is the following:- Accused Nos.1 to 3 conspired together to commit robbery at a jewellery at Kottayam and in furtherance of that conspiracy, they entered into the jewellery on 07/07/2011 at about 12.45 P.M. and at gunpoint looted a quantity of 7 Kgs. of gold ornaments from the jewellery. It is alleged that the first accused (Manoj Xavier) employed the other accused for his assistance to commit the offence. A gun was procured from accused No.4 for the commission of the offence. 4. The petitioner was arrested on 07/07/2011 and he was remanded to judicial custody. Bail Appln.No.8050/2011 : 2 : 5. The learned State Prosecutor vehemently opposed the bail application. He submitted that the petitioner belongs to Tamil Nadu and he hails from a village where professional burglars reside. The petitioner was specially engaged by the first accused for the smooth operation of the crime. It is submitted that if the petitioner is released on bail, he would flee from justice and it would not be possible to procure the presence of the petitioner for the trial of the case. The learned State Prosecutor also submitted that the petitioner is involved in another case for commission of theft of cartridges from an armoury, which were used for the commission of offence in the present case. The learned State Prosecutor also submitted that after completing the investigation, charge sheet was filed on 30/09/2011. 6. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, though the charge sheet was filed in the case, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. I am inclined to accept the submissions made by the learned State Prosecutor. I am satisfied that if the petitioner is released on bail, he would make himself scarce and indulge in prejudicial activities. Bail Appln.No.8050/2011 : 3 : For the aforesaid reasons, the Bail Application is dismissed. The learned Magistrate before whom the committal proceedings are pending shall expedite the committal proceedings. K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE skj