IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR MONDAY, THE 31ST JANUARY 2011 / 11TH MAGHA 1932 Bail Appl..No. 370 of 2011(A) ---------------------------------------- [CRIME NO.129/2010 OF KUNNAMANGALAM POLICE STATION, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT] ......... PETITIONER/5TH ACCUSED: ----------------------------------------- M.RENJITH @ KAKKA RENJITH, S/O.GOPALAKRISHNAN, MANGALOLI VEEDU, P.O.GURUVAYOORAPPAN COLLEGE, POKKUNNU, KOZHIKODE. BY ADVS. SRI.T.A.UNNIKRISHNAN, SRI. K.S. PRAVEEN. RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT: -------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. M.S. BREEZE. THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31/01/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: prv. V.RAMKUMAR, J. --------------------------------------------------- Bail Application No.370 of 2011 ----------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 31st day of January, 2011 ORDER The petitioner, who is accused No.1 in Crime No.129 of 2010 of Kunnamangalam Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 394, 120(b), 109, 411 read with Section 34 I.P.C., seeks his enlargement on bail. The petitioner was arrested on 10/07/2010. 2. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application contending inter alia that this is a case in which the de facto complainant has robbed of nearly 1 ½ Kgs. of gold ornaments at 4.35 am. on 12/4/2010 and the petitioner who was granted bail in another case by this Court had in fact committed breach of one of the bail conditions to the effect that he should not commit any offence while on bail. Petitioner is altogether involved in five other similar crimes and it was the petitioner who took delivery of the gold ornaments in this case and sold the same in Tamil Nadu. Bail Appln.No.370/2011 : 2 : 3. Having regard to the gravity of the offences, nature of the allegations levelled against the petitioner, the relative conduct of the parties, the extent of the injury sustained, the propensities of the petitioner, 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