IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN TUESDAY, THE 15TH DECEMBER 2009 / 24TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 7371 of 2009() ----------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN BA.6838/2009 CRIME NO.683/2009 OF ADIMALY POLICE STATION. .................... PETITIONER/ACCUSED: -------------------------------------- ELDHOSE @ KUNJUMON, S/O. MATHAI, ORAVALAKUDY HOUSE, ANAVIRATTY KARA, ANAVIRATTY VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.LATHEESH SEBASTIAN RESPONDENTS/STATE: ------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ADIMALY POLICE STATION. SRI. TEKCHAND, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T. SANKARAN, J. --------------------------- B.A. No. 7371 of 2009 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 15th day of December, 2009 O R D E R The petitioner had filed B.A. No. 683/2009 and that Bail Application was dismissed by the order dated 23/11/2009. For the sake of convenience, the order dated 23/11/2009 is extracted below: “ This is an application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner is the accused in Crime No.683 of 2009 of Adimaly Police Station, Idukki District. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 302 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The date of occurrence was on 18.10.2009. The petitioner was arrested on 21.10.2009. The gist of the prosecution case is the following: The de facto complainant was in love with the daughter of the accused. The de facto complainant is aged 19 years. The accused did not like the relationship between his daughter and the de facto complainant. On the date B.A. No. 7371 / 2009 2 of occurrence, the de facto complainant had contacted the girl over phone. It is alleged that the accused directed the de facto complainant to go over to the house of the accused to talk over the matter. The de facto complainant and his friend went to the house of the accused. Without any provocation, the accused attacked them with a sharp knife, which resulted in the death of the friend of the de facto complainant. The de facto complainant sustained grievous injuries. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the petitioner was involved in various crimes and he was convicted in three other cases. The petitioner was involved in Crime No.38 of 1981 of Chavakkad Police Station, Crime No.270 of 1983 of Nadakkavu Police Station and Crime No.174 of 1985 of Palakkad Town North Police Station. In all those cases, the offence of theft was alleged. The petitioner was convicted in those cases. It is also submitted that the petitioner is an accused in Crime No.665 of 2009 of B.A. No. 7371 / 2009 3 Adimaly Police Station, wherein the offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 326, 506(ii) and 427 of the Indian Penal Code. In that crime, the victim is none other than the brother of the petitioner. The investigation of the case is not over. The petitioner has criminal antecedents. The allegation is that he brutally attacked two youngsters and murdered one of them. If the petitioner is released on bail at this stage, it would adversely affect the proper investigation of the case. There is every likelihood of the petitioner intimidating the witnesses and tampering with the evidence. For the aforesaid reasons, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner at this stage. The Bail Application is, therefore, dismissed.” 2. Thereafter, the present Bail Application is filed on 7/12/2009. The circumstances in which and grounds on which bail was denied to the petitioner exist even now. Investigation of the case is not over. B.A. No. 7371 / 2009 4 3. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that if the petitioner is released on bail, life of the de facto complainant would be in danger. It is also stated that the petitioner would intimidate and influence the witnesses. 4. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner at this stage. The Bail Application is accordingly dismissed. K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE scm