IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Bail Appl..No. 777 of 2010()
1. SANAL KUMAR, S/O.SAHADEVAN PILLAI,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS
... Respondent
2. THE SUB INNSPECTOR OF POLICE,
For Petitioner :SRI.ALEXANDER GEORGE
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.T.SANKARAN
Dated :15/02/2010
O R D E R
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
3. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the gold
ornaments were recovered from a concealed place near the
family temple of the second accused.
4. 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.
5. 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