IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN WEDNESDAY, THE 23RD SEPTEMBER 2009 / 1ST ASWINA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 5359 of 2009() ---------------------------------------- CRIME NO.237/2009 OF KUMBLA POLICE STATION, KASARAGOD. PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 TO 3: ------------------------------------------------- 1. ABDUL RAHIMAN K.M., S/O. MOIDEEN KUTTY, AGED 21 YEARS, RESIDING AT KUNNIL HOUSE, PERAL KANNUR, KANNUR VILLAGE, KASARAGOD TALUK & DISTRICT. 2. MOHAMMED RAFEEQUE @ RAFEEQUE, AGED 24, S/O. MOIDU KUTTY, KUNNIL HOUSE, PERAL KANNUR, KANNUR VILLAGE, KASARAGOD TALUK & DISTRICT. 3. ABDUL RAHIMAN, S/O. MAYIN KUTTY, AGED 32 YEARS, PERAL KANNUR, KANNUR VILLAGE, KASARAGOD TALUK & DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.T.MADHU RESPONDENT/STATE: ------------------------------------- THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, KUMBLA POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. SRI. TEKCHAND, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/09/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T. SANKARAN, J. --------------------------- B.A. No. 5359 of 2009 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 23rd day of September, 2009 O R D E R This is an application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Petitioners are accused Nos.1 to 3 in Crime No. 237/2009 of Kumbla Police Station, Kasaragod. 2. The offence alleged against the petitioners is under Section 387 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. Shamsudeen, the husband of the defacto complainant was missing since July, 2007. He was doing business in Kasaragod. Accused Nos.1 and 2 are relatives of Shamsudeen. Accused Nos.1 and 2 are brothers. Accused No.3 is the friend of Accused Nos.1 and 2. The allegation is that the accused persons contacted the defacto complainant over telephone and informed that Shamsudeen was with them and that he would be released if the defacto complainant paid a sum of Rs.50,00,000/-. The defacto complainant immediately informed the police. Since the telephone call came from Bombay, the Bombay Police was also informed. The petitioners were arrested B.A. No. 5359/2009 2 by the Bombay Police and they were handed over to the Kumbla Police. The formal arrest of the petitioners was recorded on 27/8/2009. They are in judicial custody since then. 4. The learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the Bail Application. It was submitted that it has to be investigated and found out whether Shamsudeen was really in the custody of the petitioners and if so what happened after the arrest of the petitioners. Whereabouts of the Shamsudeen are to be traced out. The investigation is at the initial stage. It is submitted that if the petitioners are released on bail at his stage, it would affect the proper investigation of the case. The learned Public Prosecutor also pointed out that the accused persons are involved in several crimes. The first accused is involved in one case, where the offence alleged is under Section 392 of the Indian Penal Code. The second accused is involved in seven cases, out of which, in five cases, the offence alleged is under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code; in one case, the offence alleged is under Section 392 of the Indian Penal Code and in yet another case, the offence alleged against the second petitioner is under Section B.A. No. 5359/2009 3 387 of the Indian Penal Code. 5. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that if the petitioners are released on bail at this stage, it would have adverse impact on the proper and smooth investigation of the case. It is also likely that the petitioners may make themselves scarce, if they are granted bail. It is to be noted that the petitioners were arrested from Bombay. The likelihood of the petitioners indulging in similar criminal activities, if they are released on bail, also cannot be ruled out. For the aforesaid reasons, the Bail Application is dismissed. K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE scm