High Court Kerala High Court

Muthappa @ Suresh Belegar vs The Station House Officer on 27 August, 2009

Kerala High Court
Muthappa @ Suresh Belegar vs The Station House Officer on 27 August, 2009
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Bail Appl..No. 4845 of 2009()


1. MUTHAPPA @ SURESH BELEGAR,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER,
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.S.JIJI

                For Respondent  :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.T.SANKARAN

 Dated :27/08/2009

 O R D E R
                            K.T.SANKARAN, J.
               ------------------------------------------------------
               B.A. NOS.4845, 4846 & 4847 OF 2009
               ------------------------------------------------------
                    Dated this the 27th August, 2009


                                  O R D E R

In all these Bail Applications, the petitioner is the same person. He

has filed these applications for bail under Section 439 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure.

2. B.A.No.4845 of 2009 relates to Crime No.74 of 2009 of

Kasaragod Police Station. The petitioner is the sole accused. The

offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 454, 380

and 461 of the Indian Penal Code. The date of occurrence was on

31.1.2009. The allegation is that the petitioner committed theft of 28

sovereigns of gold, Rs.1.5 lakhs and two torches and thereby caused

a loss of Rs.4,30,000/- to the de facto complainant.

3. B.A.No.4846 of 2009 relates to Crime No.157 of 1999 of

Manjeshwar Police Station. The petitioner is the second accused in

that case. The offences alleged against the accused persons are

under Sections 454 and 380 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal

Code. That case relates to theft of a gold chain weighing 1.25

B.A. NOS.4845, 4846 AND 4847 OF 2009

:: 2 ::

sovereigns and Rs.3,000/-. The Incident was on 23.6.1999. At that

time, the petitioner was a juvenile.

4. B.A.No.4847 of 2009 relates to Crime No.932 of 2008 of

Kasaragod Police Station. The petitioner is the second accused in

that case. The offences alleged against the accused persons are

under Sections 380, 454 and 461 read with Section 34 of the Indian

Penal Code. The date of occurrence was on 4.12.2008. The

allegation is that the accused persons committed theft of 39

sovereigns of gold, one pair of silver anklets and Rs.10,000/- from

the house of the de facto complainant, thereby causing a total loss of

Rs.4 lakhs to him.

5. The petitioner was arrested on 22.7.2009 in Crime No.932

of 2008 of Kasaragod Police Station and his formal arrest was

recorded on 4.8.2009 in Crime No.74 of 2009 of Kasaragod Police

Station and on 1.8.2009 in Crime No.157 of 1999 of Manjeshwar

Police Station.

6. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the petitioner is

involved in four criminal cases in Karanataka State. Out of the said

B.A. NOS.4845, 4846 AND 4847 OF 2009

:: 3 ::

four cases, three cases involved offences of the nature similar to the

offences involved in the present cases. In one case registered in

Karnataka State, the allegation is that the accused committed

murder.

7. In 1999, when Crime No.157 of 1999 was committed, the

petitioner was a juvenile. Later, it is submitted by the learned Public

Prosecutor that the petitioner shifted his venue of operation to

Karnataka State where he indulged himself in similar criminal

activities. Thereafter, he came to Kerala and committed similar

offence. If the petitioner is released on bail, it is submitted by the

learned Public Prosecutor that he would make himself scarce and he

would commit offences of similar nature either in Kerala State or in

Karnatala State or in both the States.

8. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not think, it

is safe to release the petitioner on bail. If he is released on bail, it is

most likely that he will indulge himself in similar criminal activities.

Series of incidents and the nature of the cases revealed that the

petitioner has not reformed himself. If the petitioner is enlarged on

bail, interest of the public at large would be in peril.

B.A. NOS.4845, 4846 AND 4847 OF 2009

:: 4 ::

For the aforesaid reasons, I am not inclined to grant bail to the

petitioner. The Bail Applications are accordingly dismissed.

(K.T.SANKARAN)
Judge

ahz/