IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN MONDAY, THE 15TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 26TH MAGHA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 777 of 2010() -------------------------------------- CMP.209/2010 of JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-II, KOTTARAKKARA CRIME NO.55/2010 OF KADACKAL POLICE STATION. .................... PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.2: ------------------------------------------ SANAL KUMAR, S/O.SAHADEVAN PILLAI, SARASWATHI VILASOM, ANOTTU KAVU, CHIRAVOOR MURI, CHITHARA VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.ALEXANDER GEORGE RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT: ---------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTION HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KADACKAL POLICE STATION, KADACKAL, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR.V. TEKCHAND. THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: rs. K.T. SANKARAN, J. --------------------------- B.A. No. 777 of 2010 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 15th day of February, 2010 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.55/2010 of Kadackal Police Station, Kollam District. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 457, 461 and 380 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The prosecution case is that on 09.01.2010 between 8 P.M and 10 P.M., the accused persons trespassed into the house of the de facto complainant and committed theft of 13.750 sovereigns of gold ornaments and Rs. 250/-. In the house of the de facto complainant, a marriage had taken place a few days before. It is stated that accused No.1 is a habitual offender. Accused No.2 is stated to be a friend of the accused No.1. The house of the de facto complainant was locked and they had gone for a religious discourse. At that time, it is alleged that accused Nos. 1 and 2 entered into the house of the de facto complainant and committed theft. Accused No.2 is the neighbour of the de facto complainant. B.A. No. 777 of 2010 2 4. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the gold ornaments were recovered from a concealed place near the family temple of the second accused. 5. The investigation is not over. The first accused is also in judicial custody. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that if the petitioner is released on bail at this stage, it would adversely affect the proper investigation of the case. 6. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature and gravity of the offences and the allegations levelled against the petitioner, I do not think that the petitioner is entitled to be released on bail at this stage, particularly when the investigation is not over. The allegation that the first accused is a habitual offender and the second accused is a close friend of accused No.1 is also relevant factor to be taken note of. For the aforesaid reasons, the Bail Application is dismissed. K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE ln