IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 13TH MAY 2011 / 23RD VAISAKHA 1933 Bail Appl..No. 3591 of 2011() -------------------------------------- CMP.1530/2011 of J.M.F.C.,VADAKKANCHERRY. CRIME NO.186/2011 OF ERUMAPETTY POLICE STATION, THRISSUR DISTRICT .................... PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 2 & 3 --------------------------------------------- 1. BIJU, AGED 29 YEARS, S/O.CHINNAN, KOLADY HOUSE, PANNITHADAM, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 2. SUBIN DAS, AGED 33 YEARS, S/O.JAYAN, CHEMBRA HOUSE, VELOOR, VENGILASSERY, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.C.A.CHACKO RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT ------------------------------------------------ STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTING SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ERUMAPETTY POLICE STATION, THRISSUR DISTRICT, THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.K.MEERA THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/05/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: tss N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, J. ----------------------------------- B.A. No.3591 OF 2011 --------------------------------------- Dated this the 13th day of May, 2011 ORDER Petitioners are accused Nos.2 and 3 in Crime No.186/2011 of Erumapetty Police Station. It was registered under Sections 457, 380 read with 34 of IPC. This application is for regular bail. The petitioners were arrested on 28.4.2011. Their bail applications were dismissed by the trial court. 2. The material allegations are that the accused comitted house breaking by night in the building near Thejus Engineering College and committed thefot of 1200 rubber sheets. 3. The learned Public Prosecutor submits that the accused have been arrested and the stolen property has not been recovered so far. The learned Public Prosecutor further submits that they are habitual offenders and are involved in other crimes also. 4. The nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the materials collected in support of the allegations and the reasonable apprehension of the B.A.No.3591/11 2 accused tampering with the witnesses and the apprehension of threat to the complainants are matters to be gone into while considering the application for bail. The materials available on record would prima facie show that there is merit in the complaint lodged by the complainant. 4. The prosecution contends that the accused are powerful persons who would interfere in the course of investigation and would also indulge in similar criminal activity and that they would tamper with evidence or witnesses and threaten or terrorise the witnesses and would indulge in similar such activities which would hamper smooth investigation. The contention raised by the prosecution is that there is likelihood of the accused fleeing to another country or making himself scarce by going underground or becoming unavailable to the investigating agency also cannot be ignored. Considering all these aspects, I am not inclined to grant bail to the accused at this stage. The application is dismissed. N.K. BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE acd B.A.No.3591/11 3 B.A.No.3591/11 4