IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN THURSDAY, THE 8TH OCTOBER 2009 / 16TH ASWINA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 5764 of 2009() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.307/2008 OF KUMBLA POLICE STATION .................... PETITIONER : 2ND ACCUSED ------------------------------ MOHAMMED RAFEEQUE S/O.MOIDU KUTTY, KANNUR KUNNUMAL HOUSE KANNUR POST, EDNAD VILLAGE, KASARGOD TALUK AND DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.T.MADHU RESPONDENT(S): --------------- THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER,KUMBLA POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.M.S.BREEZ THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. --------------------------------------------- B.A.No.5764 of 2009 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 8th day of October, 2009 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.307 of 2008 of Kumbla Police Station. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 380 and 457 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The petitioner had filed B.A.No.5360 of 2009 which was disposed of by the order dated 23rd September 2009 wherein it was held thus: “3. The date of occurrence was on 7/11/2008. The formal arrest of the petitioner was recorded on 27/8/2009. The petitioner was arrested in Bombay in connection with Crime No.237/2009 of Kumbla Police Station. 4. It is submitted that the petitioner is involved in seven cases. In five of those cases, the offence alleged is under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code; in one case the offence alleged is under Section 392 and in yet another case, the offence alleged is under Section 387 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner is a habitual offender, submitted the learned Public Prosecutor. BA No.5764/2009 2 5. If the petitioner is released on bail at this stage, it is most likely that he may indulge in similar criminal activities. It is also likely that he may try to influence or intimidate the witnesses. The petitioner is involved in a very serious offence of demanding Rs.50 lakhs from the defacto complainant in Crime No.237/2009 of Kumbla Police Station for the purpose of the release of her husband, who was found missing since July 2007. For the aforesaid reasons, I am of the view that the petitioner is not entitled to be released on bail. The Bail Application is accordingly dismissed.” 4. The present Bail Application is filed on 30.9.2009. I do not find any ground to entertain this Bail Application filed only after 7 days of the order in B.A.No.5360 of 2009. The reasons for dismissal of Bail Application No.5360 of 2009 continue to exist even now. Therefore, this Bail Application is dismissed. K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE csl