IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN TUESDAY, THE 19TH JANUARY 2010 / 29TH POUSHA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 133 of 2010 CRIME NO.1011 OF 2009 OF VARKALA POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM PETITIONER/ACCUSED -------------------------------------- VINU CHACO @ VINNER, S/O.ABRAHAM CHACO, AGED 28 YEARS, KURUDANPAARAYIL HOUSE, NEAR THALAYOLAPARAMBU JUNCTION, THALAYOLAPARAMBU DESOM, VADAYAR VILLAGE, VAIKKOM TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.C.RAJENDRAN RESPONDENT: COMPLAINANT -------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY S.I OF POLICE, VARKALA POLICE STATION THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.V.TEKCHAND THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------ B.A. NO. 133 OF 2010 ------------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 19th day of January, 2010 O R D E R The petitioner had filed B.A.No.7750 of 2009 on an earlier occasion, which was dismissed as per the order dated 5.1.2010. For the sake of convenience, the order dated 5.1.2010 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.1011 of 2009 of Varkala Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram District. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 341 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The prosecution case is that on 11.12.2009, the deceased was murdered by the petitioner in the restaurant run by him. It is alleged that the deceased had come to the restaurant and there was some quarrel between the accused and the deceased. The learned Public Prosecutor submits that the deceased left the place thereafter. But he was brought back to the B.A. NO. 133 OF 2010 :: 2 :: restaurant by the accused and he was brutally assaulted by the accused. It is pointed out that there were 33 ante-mortem injuries on the body of the deceased. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the scene of occurrence, according to the prosecution, is the restaurant run by the accused. The restaurant was opened only about one and a half months before the date of the incident. The deceased was also running another restaurant in the locality. The counsel submits that the deceased along with his henchmen came to the restaurant run by the petitioner and the petitioner was brutally assaulted by them. The petitioner sustained injuries and he had to defend himself to save his life. It is also submitted that the matter was reported to the police by the petitioner. The petitioner was admitted in the hospital and he was arrested by the police while he was in the hospital. 5. The petitioner was arrested on 12.12.2009 and he is in judicial custody since then. The investigation is at the initial stage. If the petitioner is released on bail at this stage, it would adversely affect the proper investigation of the case. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner at this stage. B.A. NO. 133 OF 2010 :: 3 :: 6. It is not necessary to arrive at any conclusion on the rival contentions put forward by the prosecution and the accused. Any such observation or finding would be detrimental to the interests of either party. For the aforesaid reasons, the Bail Application is dismissed.” 2. The present Bail Application is filed on 7.1.2010, after two days of the date of dismissal of the earlier Bail Application. 3. The investigation of the case is not over and there is no change of circumstance after the order dated 5.1.2010 and before 7.1.2010. Even as on today, I do not think that the circumstances have changed so that bail can be granted to the petitioner. For the aforesaid reasons, the Bail Application is dismissed. (K.T.SANKARAN) Judge ahz/