IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN FRIDAY, THE 27TH AUGUST 2010 / 5TH BHADRA 1932 Bail Appl..No. 4920 of 2010() ------------------------------------------ (CRIME NO.1299/2010 OF THRIKKAKARA POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT) ....... PETITIONERS/ACCUSED A1,3,4: ------------------------------------------------ 1. PRAKASAN, S/O. MUKUNDAN, PANNERI HOUSE, KOOVAPPADY, PERUMBAVOOR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 2. UNNIKRISHNAN @ ANIL KUMAR, S/O. RAMAN, AYYAPPANKAVU, KONGADU, PARASSERRY VILLAGE, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 3. PRADEEP, S/O. MUKUNDAN, PANNERI HOUSE, KOOVAPPADY, PERUMBAVOOR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.GRASHIOUS KURIAKOSE, SMT. JAYASREE MANOJ. RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT: ---------------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, THRIKKAKARA POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. C.S. HRITHWIK THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss P. BHAVADASAN, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - B.A. No. 4920 of 2010 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 27th day of August, 2010 ORDER This is a petition filed under Section 439 of Criminal Procedure Code seeking bail. 2. Petitioners are accused Nos. 1, 3 and 4 in Crime No.1299 of 2010 of Thrikkakara Police Station for having committed the offences punishable under Sections 457, 461, 380 and 34 Indian Penal Code. They are accused of having committed theft of gold ornaments worth 2 ½ sovereigns. 3. It is pointed out that the petitioners have been falsely implicated and they are totally innocent. It is also pointed out that they have been implicated in several cases in Tamil Nadu and in all those cases they have been granted bail. Petitioners 1 and 2 were arrested on 18.6.2010 and the third petitioner was arrested on 29.6.2010. It is pointed out that their continued custody is not necessary since a major portion B.A.4920/2010. 2 of the investigation is over. They therefore seek bail. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor pointed out that they are habitual offenders and they may not be released on bail as their presence may not be obtained for trial. 5. There is nothing to show that the petitioners are likely to abscond when their appearance is necessary and even if there is any such apprehension, that can be safeguarded by imposing adequate conditions. A good part of the investigation is over and continued custody of the petitioners seems to be unjustified. In the result, this application is allowed as follows: 1) Petitioners shall be released on bail on each of them executing a bond for Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum each to the satisfaction of JFCM-I, Aluva. 2) Petitioners shall report before the investigating officer on every Thursday between 10 a.m. and 11 a.m. till final report is laid. B.A.4920/2010. 3 3) Petitioners shall not tamper or attempt to tamper with the evidence or influence or try to influence the witnesses. P. BHAVADASAN, JUDGE sb.