BAIL APPL No. 4687 of 2009 · Kerala High Court
Case at a glance
- Decided
- 21 Aug 2009
- Bench
- K T SANKARAN
Outcome
Bail granted
Ifhe is released on bail, it would seriously affect the smoothinvestigation of the case
Provisions considered
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 s. 439
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 ss. 380, 454, 461
Key paragraphs
- Para 88. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, Iam of the view that the District Superintendent of Police shall supervise the investigation of the case and shall also take into account the observations made hereinabove. For the aforesaid reasons, the Bail Application is…
Judgment
K.T. SANKARAN, J.---------------------------B.A. No. 4687 of 2009------------------------------------Dated this the 21st day of August, 2009
O R D E R This is an application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner is the first accused inCR. No.179/2009 of Manjeshwar Police Station, Kasargod.
The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 454, 380 and 461 of the Indian Penal Code.
The prosecution case is that on 16/06/2009 between10.30 A.M and 11.30 A.M., while the defacto complainant had gone to her relatives' house for bereavement, her house was broke open and 19 ½ sovereigns of gold were stolen.
The petitioner was arrested on 17/07/2009 and he was remanded to judicial custody. According to the prosecution, two other persons are also involved in the offence. They have not been arrested.
The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the petitioner is involved in other cases of similar nature.
From the Case Diary it is seen that on 11/07/2009,statement of one Aboobacker Riyas was recorded. He is a distant B.A. No. 4687/ 2009 Page numbers relative of the defacto complainant. The statement of AboobackerRiyas would disclose the following facts. The petitioner and two other persons met him on 16/06/2009 and enquired whether something would be available in the house of the defactocomplainant. Aboobacker Riyas reacted positively. The petitioner and the two other persons went to the house of the defactocomplainant and committed the offence. While returning, they met Aboobacker Riyas and promised a share in the booty. Thetwo wheeler of the first accused was kept in the compound of Aboobacker Riyas. Thereafter, the first accused contactedAboobacker Riyas over telephone on several occasions to ascertain whether the police had come to the scene of occurrence. Aboobacker Riyas has given several other relevant details. Prima facie, it would appear that Aboobacker Riyas is also involved in the offence. He had also guilty intention to perpetrate the offence or he is a privy to the transaction. Thestatement of Aboobacker Riyas would also show that the vehicle of the petitioner was taken from the house of Aboobacker Riyasafter two or three days. The statement also reveals that the petitioner requested Aboobacker Riyas to mention the name of B.A. No. 4687/ 2009 Page numbers one Anzar, if by some chance the police were to ask Aboobackerabout the incident. It is not clear why the investigating officer has not made a further probe in the matter.
Operative part
In the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not think that the petitioner can be released on bail at this stage. Ifhe is released on bail, it would seriously affect the smooth investigation of the case. The gold ornaments have not been recovered. The other two persons have not been arrested. Theinvestigation has to go a long way. There is no justification for releasing the petitioner, who has criminal antecedents.
In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, Iam of the view that the District Superintendent of Police shall supervise the investigation of the case and shall also take into account the observations made hereinabove. For the aforesaid reasons, the Bail Application is dismissed. Hand over copy of this order to both sides. K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGEscm
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Ifhe is released on bail, it would seriously affect the smoothinvestigation of the case
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 439; Indian Penal Code, 1860 — ss. 380, 454, 461.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Kerala High Court, on 21 Aug 2009. The bench was K T SANKARAN.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.