IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN THURSDAY, THE 13TH OCTOBER 2011 / 21ST ASWINA 1933 Bail Appl..No. 8067 of 2011() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.210/11 OF MANKADA POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM .................... PETITIONER/2ND ACCUSED --------------------------------- MIDHUN @ MANU, S/O. MANOHARAN, PEEDIKAPAPRAMBIL HOUSE, KARTHIKAPPALLI AMSOM, HARIPAD. BY ADV. SRI.P.SREEKUMAR SRI.K.S.MANU (PUNUKKONNOOR) RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT -------------------------- 1. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MANKADA POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT678 580. 2. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ERNAKULAM 682 031. ADV. SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR,ASG OF INDIA FOR R-2 PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.DHANESH MATHEW THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13/10/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. --------------------------- B.A.No.8067 of 2011 --------------------------- Dated this the 13th day of October, 2011 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.2 in Crime No.210 of 2011 of Mankada Police Station, Malappuram District. 2. The offence alleged against the petitioner is under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The prosecution case is the following : The accused persons belong to different places. They were in search of iridium which is very valuable in open market. Most of the accused believed that in the Thazhikakkudam of temples, iridium will be available. They tried their level best to get Thazhikakkudams in two places in Karnataka State. They expected the co-operation of Adivasis, but they did not get it. Therefore, all their attempts were futile. Then they turned BA 8067/11 2 their search to Kerala State. It was believed by the accused that Thazhikakkudam in the very old temple at Mankada, where the offence was allegedly committed, would contain iridium. The temple is a very ancient temple, more than 350 years old. It belongs to a Namboothiri family. Investigation revealed that Pooja in the temple would be only in the morning. The allegation is that on 22.9.2011 at about 7.30 P.M., the de facto complainant and his friends, while going through the pathway near the temple, heard some noises inside the temple. They went to the temple with lighted torches. They found that two persons were attempting to remove the Thazhikakkudam. On seeing the de facto complainant and others, they came down. The other accused, who were in the Thidappilly, attacked the de facto complainant and his friends. The accused ran away. The matter was informed to the police. By that time, the people of the locality apprehended some of the accused. During the day time on the date of offence the accused persons were roaming around in the locality in a Maruti Omni Van and a Pulsor motor bike and some people in the locality had noticed it. The petitioner was one among the person who was apprehended. The petitioner was BA 8067/11 3 arrested and he was remanded to judicial custody. 4. The various materials brought out in the investigation would reveal, prima facie, that there was a premeditated effort to commit dacoity and the accused were searching for a place to commit the offence. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has just completed his plus two course, that he is innocent, that he had gone to Mankada to see his friend and that he is in no way connected with the offence. Prima facie, the materials on record would show that the petitioner is also involved in the offence. The accused persons, as per the plans fixed among them, went to Perinthalmanna, lodged in a hotel stating that they had to attend a marriage at Mankada and left the lodge in the morning on 22.9.2011. Thereafter, they were found roaming around the place of occurrence. They consumed alcohol on the bank of a thodu near the temple and made all preparations for committing the crime. BA 8067/11 4 6. The offences alleged against the accused are very serious in nature. Detailed investigation is required. All the accused persons have not been arrested. If the petitioner is released on bail at this stage, it would adversely affect the proper and smooth investigation of the case. It is also likely that the petitioner may try to influence or intimidate the witnesses and tamper with the evidence. For the aforesaid reasons, the Bail Application is dismissed. K.T.SANKARAN JUDGE csl