High Court Kerala High Court

Shereef vs State Of Kerala on 19 December, 2007

Kerala High Court
Shereef vs State Of Kerala on 19 December, 2007
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Bail Appl No. 7811 of 2007()


1. SHEREEF, S/O. MUHAMMED BASHEER,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. STATE OF KERALA,
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.O.V.MANIPRASAD

                For Respondent  :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT

 Dated :19/12/2007

 O R D E R
                               R.BASANT, J
                       ------------------------------------
                        B.A.No.7811 of 2007
                       -------------------------------------
            Dated this the 19th day of December, 2007

                                   ORDER

Application for regular bail. Petitioner is the 2nd accused in a

crime registered under Section 394 I.P.C. The crux of the

allegations raised against the petitioner is that he along with the

co-accused was travelling in a motor cycle and they in

furtherance of their common intention snatched a gold chain worn

by the defacto complainant/victim. The alleged incident took

place on 18.01.05. The petitioner was later arrested in

connection with some other crime. Thereafter his arrest has been

noted in the present crime also. He continues in custody from

22.10.07. Investigation is in progress. The co-accused (1st

accused) has not been arrested yet. Investigation is in progress.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

petitioner who has remained in custody from 22.10.07 may now

be enlarged on bail subject to appropriate terms and conditions.

3. The learned Public Prosecutor opposes the application.

The learned Public Prosecutor submits that the petitioner is

involved in other crimes also. The nature of allegations may be

B.A.No.7811 of 2007 2

taken into consideration. The fact that the co-accused has not

been apprehended yet may also be taken note of. It is too early

to consider the release of the petitioner on bail now, submits the

learned Public Prosecutor.

4. I find merit in the opposition by the learned Public

Prosecutor. I take note of the submission of the learned Public

Prosecutor that the section of the crime shown in the order of

Sessions Judge is not correct and the crime is registered under

Section 394 r/w 34 I.P.C. I am not satisfied that the petitioner

deserves to be enlarged on bail at this stage in a serious crime

like this. Co-accused has not been arrested so far. I am unable to

agree that the petitioner is entitled to the invocation of the

discretion under Section 439 Cr.P.C at this stage.

5. This application for regular bail is, in these

circumstances, dismissed, but with the observation that the

petitioner shall be at liberty to move this Court for bail again at a

later stage of the investigation – not, at any rate, prior to

03.01.08. The investigators shall in the meantime make every

endeavour to complete the investigation.

(R.BASANT, JUDGE)
rtr/-

B.A.No.7811 of 2007 3