IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN MONDAY, THE 16TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 25TH KARTHIKA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 6562 of 2009() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.2330/2009 OF PERUMBAVOOR POLICE STATION PETITIONERS/ACCUSED --------------------------------------- 1. VIJAYAN,S/O.RAGHAVAN, VADAVALLIYANKAL,KARINILAM, MUNDAKAYAM,KOTTAYAM. 2. MOHANAN @ BABY, MANISHA BHAVAN,PALLICKA VILLAGE,MAVELIKARA. 3. NOBY,S/O.ABRAHAM, ATTAPPATTU,POONJAR,KOTTAYAM. 4. LALITHA,W/O.VIJAYAN, VADAVALLIYANKAL,KARINILAM,MUNDAKAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.M.J.THOMAS RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT -------------------------- THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PERUMBAVOOR 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 16/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. --------------------------------------------- B.A.No.6562 of 2009 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 16th day of November, 2009 ORDER This is an application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioners are accused Nos.1 to 4 in Crime No.2330 of 2009 of Perumbavoor Police Station. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioners are under Section 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 25 of the Arms Act. 3. The prosecution case is that on 27.10.2009, on a search made in a Maruti car in which the accused persons were travelling a sum of Rs.1.5 lakhs, various types of weapons, chilly powder and bundles of plain papers having the size of currency notes were found. The petitioners were arrested on 27.10.2009 and they were remanded to judicial custody. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that accused No.3 (3rd petitioner) was later released on bail as per the order passed by the learned Magistrate and therefore, this Bail Application is unnecessary in so far as the third petitioner is concerned. BA No.6562/2009 2 5. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the first accused is involved in another case and he was in judicial custody in that case. Accused No.4 is the wife of accused No.1. 6. 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 accused Nos.2 and 4 (petitioners 2 and 4) on stringent conditions. Since accused No.1 is involved in another case of similar nature, I am not inclined to grant bail to him at this stage. Petitioners 2 and 4 shall be released on bail (accused Nos.2 and 4) on their executing bond for Rs.25,000/- each with two solvent sureties for the like amount to the satisfaction of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Perumbavoor, subject to the following conditions: a) Petitioners 2 and 4 shall report before the investigating officer between 9 A.M. and 11 A.M. on every Monday and Thursday for a period of two months and thereafter on all Mondays, till the final report is filed or until further orders; b) Petitioners 2 and 4 shall appear before the investigating officer for interrogation as and when required; BA No.6562/2009 3 c) Petitioners 2 and 4 shall not try to influence the prosecution witnesses or tamper with the evidence; d) Petitioners 2 and 4 shall not commit any offence or indulge in any prejudicial activity while on bail; e) In case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, the bail shall be liable to be cancelled. In the result, the Bail Application is dismissed as unnecessary in so far as it relates to the third petitioner and the Bail Application is dismissed on merits in so far as it relates to the first petitioner. The Bail Application is allowed in the manner indicated above in so far as it relates to petitioners 2 and 4. K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE csl