IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR THURSDAY, THE 10TH FEBRUARY 2011 / 21ST MAGHA 1932 Bail Appl..No. 932 of 2011() --------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN BA.74/2010 CRIME NO. 1597/2010 ERAVIPURAM POLICE STATION, KOLLAM .................... PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 4 TO 6 ------------------------------------- 1. MANU CHANDRAN, AGED 32 YEARS, S/O.CHANDRA BANU, NADAYIL KIZHAKKETHIL, NEAR MAYANAD VILLAGE, MAYANAD. 2. ARUN PRASAD, AGED 28 YEARS, S/O.SIVA PRASAD, `DHANYA', IN FRONT OF KANICHERY SCHOOL, THAZHUTHALA CHERRY, MAYANAD VILLAGE. 3. NILE, AGED 34 YEARS, S/O.SIVADASAN, ARADHANAYIL, SNEHA NAGAR-203, AYATHIL CHERRY, VADAKKEVILA VILLAGE. BY ADVS. SRI.P.B.SURESH KUMAR SRI.K.P.SUJESH KUMAR RESPONDENT(S): STATE ----------------------------- STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.C.K.SURESH THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: svs V. RAMKUMAR, J. .................................................... Bail Application No. 932 of 2011 ..................................................... Dated this the 10th day of February, 2011. ORDER Petitioners, who are accused Nos.4 to 6 in Crime No.1597 of 2010 of Eravipuram Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 406, 417, 420, 468 and 120(B) r/w Section 34 I.P.C and Section 66 of Information Technology Act, seek their enlargement on bail. The occurrence took place on 12.10.2010. The petitioners were arrested on 19.12.2010, 20.12.2010 and 23.12.2010 respectively. 2. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application contending inter alia that the petitioners were three candidates who were prepared to pay more than `5 lakhs for getting selection for the post of Sub Inspector of Police by underhand means and that the investigation has revealed that the racket involving A1 to A3 and A8 to A10 for procuring employment to aspirants for employment in public service, has been functioning from the year 2000 onwards and that nine cases have so far been detected against them. 3. Having regard to the gravity of the offences, nature of the allegations levelled against the petitioners, the relative conduct of the parties, the extent of the injury sustained, the propensities of the petitioners, the sentiments of the large B.A. No. 932/2011 2 majority of job seekers waiting in the queue and the other facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that if the petitioners are released on bail, they will definitely influence and intimidate the prosecution witnesses. There is also the likelihood of the petitioners making themselves scarce and fleeing from justice. I am, therefore, not inclined to grant bail to the petitioners at this stage. This petition is accordingly dismissed. V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE. rv