IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Bail Appl..No. 5478 of 2009()
1. MUTHAPPA @ SURESH BELEGAR,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SMT.C.G.PREETHA
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.T.SANKARAN
Dated :25/09/2009
O R D E R
K.T. SANKARAN, J.
---------------------------
B.A. Nos. 5478, 5494 & 5495 of 2009
-----------------------------------------------
Dated this the 25th day of September, 2009
O R D E R
The petitioner is the accused in three crimes, where the
offences are similar in nature. The petitioner filed three Bail
Applications earlier as B.A.Nos.4845/2009, 4846/2009 and
4847/2009, which were dismissed by me by the order dated
27/08/2009. For easy reference, the order dated 27/8/2009 is
quoted below:
“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
B.A. Nos.5478, 5494 & 5495 /2009
2
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
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
B.A. Nos.5478, 5494 & 5495 /2009
3
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 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
B.A. Nos.5478, 5494 & 5495 /2009
4
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.
For the aforesaid reasons, I am not inclined to
grant bail to the petitioner. The Bail Applications are
accordingly dismissed. ”
2. After the disposal of Bail Applications referred to
B.A. Nos.5478, 5494 & 5495 /2009
5
above, the circumstances have not changed much. The
investigation is not completed.
3. It is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that
complicity of other persons in the offence is also under
investigation. All the stolen articles are not recovered.
In the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any
ground to allow the Bail Applications. These Bail Applications are
accordingly dismissed.
K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE
scm