IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN THURSDAY, THE 22ND OCTOBER 2009 / 30TH ASWINA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 6101 of 2009() ----------------------------- Cr.NO.345/2009 OF RAMAMANGALAM POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM .................... PETITIONER/2ND ACCUSED ------------------------------------------ JOSCO ISSAC, S/O. ISSAC, AGED 24 YEARS AREEKUNEL VEEDU, KOCHERIKKAL BHAGOM, PIRAMADOM KARA, ONAKKUR,ERNAKULAM DIST. BY ADV. SRI.PEEYUS A.KOTTAM RESPONDENT(S): STATE AND DEFACTO COMPLAINANT -------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, RAMAMANGALAM POLICE STATION RAMAMANGALAM (INVESTIGATING OFFICER IN CR.NO.345/ 2009) REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM COCHIN-682031. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.TEKCHAND THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. --------------------------------------------- B.A.No.6101 of 2009 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 22nd day of October, 2009 ORDER The petitioner, who is accused No.2 in Cr.No.345 of 2009 of Ramamangalam Police Station, Ernakulam District, has filed this application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. The offence alleged against the petitioner is under Section 394 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The prosecution case is the following: On 14.9.2009, the defacto complainant, namely, Selvakumar was driving a lorry through Muvattupuzha - Piravom Road. The defacto complainant had come from Chennai to Kochi in a lorry with goods. He was returning to Chennai. During his return trip, he had taken goods in the lorry from a timber works at Piravom. At 11.30 P.M., three persons came on a motor bike from the opposite side of the lorry and gave signal to the defacto complainant to stop the lorry. He stopped the lorry. The motor bike was placed across the road. The persons who were riding on the motor bike tried to snatch money from the pocket of the defacto complainant. He BA No.6101/2009 2 resisted. The defacto complainant was thereafter beaten up by the aforesaid three persons and a sum of Rs.1,800/- and a mobile phone was forcibly taken from him. The aforesaid three persons drove away from the place. The defacto complainant gave the FI statement in which the number of the motor bike and all the relevant details were furnished. The mobile phone number was also furnished by the defacto complainant to the police. 4. The police trapped the accused persons with the help of the mobile phone which they had taken from the defacto complainant. The petitioner, who is the second accused, was arrested on 15.9.2009 and he was remanded to judicial custody. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is in custody since 15.9.2009 and therefore, it is only proper to release him from judicial custody. 6. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the Bail Application. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the petitioner and the third accused were involved in a similar offence in 2005 which is now pending as C.C.No.573 of 2007 on the file of the court of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Kolencherry. BA No.6101/2009 3 7. The allegation is that the petitioner and the other accused were committed highway robbery. The defacto complainant had come to the State of Kerala with goods in the lorry driven by him. He was returning to Tamil Nadu. Persons indulging in highway robbery should be dealt with very effectively; or else there will be no security for the people who travel through highway. The allegation is that in spite of the fact that the petitioner and the third accused are facing trial before court in another case, they committed a similar offence. In highway robbery cases, bail cannot be granted in a routine manner. The consequences of highway robbery and the impact of the same on the general public are to be taken into account while dealing with the Bail application of the persons indulging in highway robbery. Highway robbery is not an offence against any individual. It is an offence against the society at large. Whoever comes in the way would be subjected to highway robbery. I am of the view that such cases are to be dealt with very seriously and the Bail Applications are to be considered in the light of the facts and circumstances and the impact of the offence on the general public. BA No.6101/2009 4 8. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature and gravity of the offence and the allegations levelled against the petitioner, I am of the view that the petitioner cannot be granted bail at this stage. There is every likelihood that the petitioner may indulge in similar offences, if bail is granted to the him. It is also likely that the petitioner may tamper with the evidence and make himself scarce. For the aforesaid reasons, the Bail Application is dismissed. K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE csl