IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN MONDAY, THE 11TH JANUARY 2010 / 21TH POUSHA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 28 of 2010 PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.11 -------------------------------------------- MUHAMMED ANAS, AGED 26 YEARS, S/O. MAMMU MUSALIAR, 'DARUL SALAM', P.R.NAGAR P.O., VIA-MATTANNUR. BY ADV. SRI.T.M.ABDUL LATHEEF RESPONDENTS: (COMPLAINANT & STATE) ------------------------------------ 1. STATION HOUSE OFFICER, THALASSERY POLICE STATION, THALASSERY. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.AMJAD ALI THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------ B.A. NO. 28 OF 2010 ------------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 11th day of January, 2010 O R D E R This is an application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner is accused No.11 in Crime No.555 of 2009 of Thalassery Police Station, Kannur District. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 395 and 399 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The date of occurrence was on 30.9.2009, The allegation is that the accused persons snatched away 789 grams of gold and Rs.50,000/- from the de facto complainant. The petitioner was arrested on 10.12.2009. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the Bail Application. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that bail was granted to accused Nos.1 and 2 as per the order dated 6.1.2010 by B.A. NO. 28 OF 2010 :: 2 :: the Sessions Court, Thalassery. A photocopy of the order was handed over by the learned counsel for the petitioner. It is seen from the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge that the first accused was arrested on 10.11.2009 and the second accused was arrested on 10.12.2009. The petitioner in the present case was arrested on 10.12.2009. 6. Since the learned Sessions Judge has granted bail to accused Nos.1 and 2, I do not think that in the same circumstances, it would be proper to deny bail to accused No.11 only on the ground that he approached the High Court. It is true that the Bail Application submitted by the petitioner was dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge by the order dated 22.12.2009. However, bail was granted to accused Nos.1 and 2 by the learned Sessions Judge as per the order dated 6.1.2010. 7. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, the duration of the judicial custody undergone by the petitioner, the nature of the offence and the present stage of investigation, I am of the view that bail can be granted to the petitioner. B.A. NO. 28 OF 2010 :: 3 :: 8. The petitioner shall be released on bail on his executing bond for Rs.50,000/- with two solvent sureties for the like amount to the satisfaction of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Thalassery, subject to the following conditions: a) The petitioner shall report before the investigating officer between 9 A.M. and 11 A.M. on all Mondays and Thursdays, till the final report is filed or until further orders; b) The petitioner shall appear before the investigating officer for interrogation as and when required; c) The petitioner shall surrender his passport before the Court of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Thalassery, within a period of one week. If the petitioner does not hold an Indian Passport, an affidavit to that effect shall be filed before the learned Magistrate; d) The petitioner shall not try to influence the prosecution witnesses or tamper with the evidence; e) The petitioner shall not commit any offence or indulge in any prejudicial activity while on bail; f) In case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, the bail shall be liable to be cancelled. The Bail Application is allowed as above. (K.T.SANKARAN) Judge ahz/