IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR FRIDAY, THE 14TH JANUARY 2011 / 24TH POUSHA 1932 Bail Appl..No. 8012 of 2010() ------------------------------------------ (CRIME NO.116/2003 OF CBCID POLICE, KOZHIKODE) ...... PETITIONER: ACCUSED 148: -------------------------------------------- NIZAMUDEEN, AGED 28 YEARS, S/O. MAMUKOYA, KALLUVETCHA VEETIL HOUSE, BEYPORE AMSOM AND DESOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.P.K.VARGHESE RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT: --------------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.V.TEKCHAND THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss V. RAMKUMAR, J. -------------------------------------------------- Bail Application No.8012 of 2010 --------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 14th day of January, 2011 ORDER The petitioner, who is accused No.148 in Crime No.116/CR/2003 of CBCID, Kozhikode, for offences punishable under Sections120(B), 143, 147, 148, 449, 302, 307, 326, 324, 435, 427 448, 153(A) read with Sections 34 & 149 I.P.C. and Sections 3 & 5 of Explosive Substance Act, Sections 25(1)(A) & 27(1) of the Indian Arms Act and also under Sections 7 & 9 of the Religious Institutions (Prevention of Misuse) Act, seeks his enlargement on bail. The occurrence took place on 02/05/2003. The petitioner was arrested on 15/10/2010. 2. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application contending inter alia that this is the second Maradu Carnage case in which eight persons were brutally murdered. Even though the occurrence took place in the year 2003 the petitioner who was absconding could be apprehended only after seven years. 3. Having regard to the gravity of the offences, nature of the allegations levelled against the petitioner, the relative B.A.No.8012/2010 2 conduct of the parties, the extent of the injury sustained, the propensities of the petitioner, the sentiments of the near relatives of the victim and the other facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that if the petitioner is released on bail, he will definitely influence and intimidate the prosecution witnesses. There is also the likelihood of the petitioner making himself scarce and fleeing from justice. I am, therefore, not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner at this stage. This petition is accordingly dismissed. V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE skj