IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN THURSDAY, THE 25TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 6TH PHALGUNA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 873 of 2010 CRIME NO.1178 OF 2009 OF ANGAMALY POLICE STATION C.C.NO.408 OF 2009 ON THE FILE OF THE COURT OF JFCM II, ALUVA. PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 TO 6 1. KISHORE, S/O.ANASOOYA, AGED 25, H.NO.116, NEAR IOC BASIN ROAD, MANALY EXPRESS ROAD, RAMASWAMY NAGAR, KARMEDU, THIRUVATHOOR, THIRUVALLOOR DISTRICT. 2. KUMAR, S/O.MARY, AGED 27, H.NO.7, NEW HOUSE NO.13, 6TH STREET, RAJAMAMANGALAM, WILLIVAGAM, CHENNAI-48, TAMILNADU. 3. KISHORE, AGED 26, S/O.VENKITAYA, DOOR NO.5, GOVT.COLONY, BENGEL MUNDALAM, KAERKAL COPPA, BITHRAGUNDI, NEAR BYPASS, NELLOOR DISTRICT, ANDRAPRADESH. 4. LAZAR, S/O.MANORAMA, AGED 22, OLD HOUSE NO.54, NEW NO.24, INDIRA NAGAR, PALLAM, RAJAMANGALAM, VILLIVAKOM, CHENNAI-49, TAMILNADU. 5. JOHNSON, AGED 29, S/O.MALLAYA, H.NO.5, 2ND STREET, NEAR WATER TANK, RAJAMANGALAM, DO. DO. 6. PRADEEP, AGED 26, S/O.BABU, D.NO.45, NEAR TELUNGU CHURCH, 3RD CROSS ROAD, JARDHAPET, KAVERLI DISTRICT, ANDRAPRADESH. BY ADV. SRI.P.SHAIJAN JOSEPH RESPONDENT: COMPLAINANT SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ANGAMALY POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.V.TEKCHAND THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/02/2010, THE COURT ON 25/02/2010, PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------ B.A. NO. 873 OF 2010 ------------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 25th day of February, 2010 O R D E R The petitioners, accused Nos. 1 to 6 in C.C. No.1178 of 2009 on the file of the Court of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Aluva (Crime No.1178 of 2009 of Angamaly Police Station) seek bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. The prosecution case is the following: The de facto complainant is employed abroad. He came on leave to his native place at Angamaly. He is engaged in the construction of a house. On 3-6-2009, the de facto complainant and Wilson, his brother in law, went to the State Bank of India, Angamaly branch to draw money. The de facto complainant withdrew a sum of Rs.Two lakhs from his account. Thereafter, the de facto complainant and Wilson went to Janatha Sanitary Ware at Angamaly to purchase sanitary items. They parked the car in front of the sanitary shop. Out of the amount drawn from the bank, Rs.One lakh was taken by the de facto complainant with him and the balance amount of Rs.One lakh was B.A. NO. 873 OF 2010 :: 2 :: kept locked in the dashboard of the car. The car was also locked. After they came back from the shop, it was found that the side glass of the car was broken. It was also noticed that the dashboard was broke open and the cash kept therein was stolen by somebody. The de facto complainant reported the matter to the police and accordingly the Crime was registered. 3. The petitioners were arrested by the Tripunithura police in connection with another theft case. It would appear that the accused made confession statement which indicated their involvement in Crime No.1178 of 2009 of Angamaly Police Station. The petitioners were arrayed as accused in Crime No.1178 of 2009 of Angamaly Police Station and their formal arrest was recorded on 7-9-2009. 4. The Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Aluva granted bail to accused No.6, as per the order dated 26th September, 2009. The learned Magistrate granted bail to the other accused persons as well as per the order dated 6th October, 2009. However, the accused were not released on bail as they failed to comply with the conditions imposed while granting bail. B.A. NO. 873 OF 2010 :: 3 :: 5. The investigation was completed and charge sheet was filed on 26-9-2009. The case was taken on file as C.C. No.408 of 2009 on the file of the Court of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class II, Aluva. 6. The Circle Inspector of Police, Angamaly filed Crl. M.C.No. 2020 of 2009 before the Sessions Court, Ernakulam, for cancellation of bail granted to the petitioners. The learned Sessions Judge allowed the application by the order dated 11th January 2010. The learned Sessions Judge noticed that the accused are involved in nine cases of theft and allied offences. 7. The trial of the case is going on before the Court of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class II, Aluva. While so, the petitioners moved the present application for bail before the High Court. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that there is no reason why the petitioners should be detained further. The petitioners are prepared to comply with any condition that may be imposed by the Court for the grant of bail. The petitioners are also B.A. NO. 873 OF 2010 :: 4 :: prepared to deposit a reasonable amount before Court to ensure their presence before court during trial. 9. The learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the Bail Application. He submitted that the petitioners are involved in nine cases. The details of Crime Numbers, offence alleged and name of the police stations, in respect of the said nine cases are shown below. Crime Number Offence Police Station 1067/09 380 read with 34 IPC Angamaly 993/09 380 read with 34 IPC Hill Palace 1379/09 380 read with 34 IPC Perumbavoor 1380/09 380 read with 34 IPC Perumbavoor 343/09 380 read with 34 IPC Kottayam West 279/09 380 read with 34 IPC Kottayam West 1028/09 380 read with 34 IPC North Paravur 310/09 380 read with 34 IPC Kottayam West 984/09 380 read with 34 IPC Ernakulam Town North 10. The petitioners had filed B.A. No.512 of 2010 under Section 439 Crl.P.C. in respect of Crime No.1067 of Angamaly Police Station. That bail application was dismissed by the order dated 4th February 2010. B.A. NO. 873 OF 2010 :: 5 :: 11. From the address furnished by the petitioners in the Bail Application, it is clear that the petitioners belong to Tamil Nadu and Andhra Pradesh. The learned Public Prosecutor pointed out that the number of cases of theft, robbery, burglary, dacoity, lurking house trespass, house breaking and allied offences are on the increase in the State. It is submitted that gangs of criminals are operating in State for commission of such offences. There are persons who provide the finance and necessary facilities for such criminals. They are prepared to bail out the offenders so that they can be profitably employed for committing other crimes. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the “business in crimes” would flourish if the petitioners and similar offenders are released on bail, unmindful of the consequences. It is pointed out that there are several instances where criminals from outside the State come to Kerala under the pretext of seeking manual works, commit offences, cross the border and vanish. Rampant instances of house breaking, snatching of gold ornaments of pedestrian women and the like have caused a sense of insecurity among the people, submits the learned Public Prosecutor. If the victims resist the offence, the offenders may even cause danger to the life and limb of the victims. B.A. NO. 873 OF 2010 :: 6 :: 12. I am of the view that the accused persons, against whom serious offences of similar nature are alleged in nine cases registered in different police stations, cannot be granted bail at this stage, particularly when the trial of the case is going on. The submissions made by the learned Public Prosecutor cannot be brushed aside as irrelevant. If the petitioners are released on bail, they may make themselves scarce. Trial of the cases would be in standstill if the petitioners abscond, which is not a remote probability, but a proximate possibility. The probability of the petitioners indulging in similar criminal activities, making the life of the people miserable, cannot be ruled out. For the aforesaid reasons, the Bail Application is dismissed. (K.T.SANKARAN) Judge ahz/