IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : MONDAY, THE 26TH OCTOBER 2009 / 4TH KARTHIKA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 6112 of 2009() ------------------------------------ CRIME NO. 237/2009 OF KUMBLA POLICE STATION .................... PETITIONER/3RD ACCUSED : ------------------------------------------ ABDUL RAHIMAN S/O. MAYINKUTTY, AGED 32 YEARS, PERAL KANNUR, KANNUR POST, KASARAGOD TALUK. BY ADVS. SMT.T.D.RAJALAKSHMI SRI.R.SREEHARI RESPONDENT: --------------------- STATE OF KERALA REPRESETNED BY THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, KUMBLA POLICE STATION THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. BY SRI. M.S.BREEZ PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T. SANKARAN, J. --------------------------- B.A. No. 6112 of 2009 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 26th day of October, 2009 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.3 in Crime No. 237/2009 of Kumbla Police Station. 2. The offence alleged against the petitioner is under Section 387 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The petitioner and accused Nos. 1 and 2 filed Bail Application No.5359/2009 for bail. That application was dismissed by the order dated 23.09.2009. For the sake of convenience, the order dated 23.09.2009 is extracted below:- “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. B.A. No. 6112 of 2009 2 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 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 B.A. No. 6112 of 2009 3 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 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 B.A. No. 6112 of 2009 4 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.” 4. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the investigating team is at present in Bombay in the course of investigation of the case. The husband of the defacto complainant is not traced out so far. If the petitioner is released on bail, it would adversely affect the proper investigation of the case. For the aforesaid reasons, the Bail Application is dismissed. K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE ln