IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR MONDAY, THE 10TH JANUARY 2011 / 20TH POUSHA 1932 Bail Appl..No. 7 of 2011() -------------------------- CMP.7243/2010 of J.M.F.C.-II,HOSDRUG .................... (CRIME NO.855/2010 OF BEKAL POLICE STATION ,KASARAGOD DISTRICT) ........ PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NO.2 AND 3: ---------------------------------------------------------- 1. LATHEEF,S/O.KUNHAPPU,AGED 19 YEARS, PALLARAM, PERIYATTADUKKA,PANAYAL VILLAGE, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. 2. MUHAMMED YASIN,S/O.THAHIRA,AGED 19 YEARS, PERIYTTADUKKA,PANAYAL VILLAGE, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.B.ARUNKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, BEKAL POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.C.S. HRITHWIK THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/01/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss V. RAMKUMAR, J. .................................................... Bail Application No. 7 of 2011 ..................................................... Dated this the 10th day of January, 2011. ORDER Petitioners, who are accused Nos.2 and 3 in Cr. No.855 of 2010 of Bekal Police Station for an offence punishable under Section 392 I.P.C., seek their enlargement on bail. The occurrence took place on 13.12.2010. The petitioners were arrested on 17.12.2010. 2. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application contending inter alia that apart from extracting `2,500/- in cash and robbing the complainant of a mobile phone, a sum of `17,500/- was withdrawn using his ATM card. 3.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 near relatives of the victim 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