IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN MONDAY, THE 29TH AUGUST 2011 / 7TH BHADRA 1933 Bail Appl..No. 6903 of 2011() ----------------------------- CBCID HWI-85/CR/THIRUVANANTHAPURAM/2009 PENDING BEFORE JFMC-II, NEYYATTINKARA. .................... PETITIONER (S): 1ST ACCUSED -------------------------------------- PAULSON ,S/O.BHAGYANATHAN ARUVIKKUZHY KIZHAKKE PUTHEN VEEDU PELAKKAVILA, MURIYANKARA DESOM, PARASSALA VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.G.SUDHEER RESPONDENT(S): --------------- STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.V.MANU THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. --------------------------- B.A.No.6903 of 2011 --------------------------- Dated this the 29th day of August, 2011 O R D E R This is an application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner is accused No.1 in CBCID Crime No.HWI-85/CR/Thiruvananthapuram/2009. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 341, 294(b), 323 and 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The date of occurrence was on 5.2.2009. The petitioner was convicted and sentenced in an abkari offence and he was undergoing imprisonment since 26.3.2011. His formal arrest was recorded in the present case on 5.7.2011. 4. Accused No.2, who was arrested on 28.6.2011, was released on bail as per the order dated 19th August, 2011 in Bail Application No.6279 of 2011. The learned Single Judge BA 6903/2011 2 who disposed of the Bail Application held as follows : “2. The gist of the prosecution case is that the petitioner (A2) with the other accused (A1), pursuant to their common intention, committed the murder of one Ani on the evening of 5.2.2009. In the morning of that day, owing to previous enmity of A1 with the deceased in relation to some money transactions with them, an altercation as between A1 and A2 on one side and the victim on the other side allegedly took place. Later, in the evening, when the victim went over to a pond to have a bath, the two accused together reached the spot, picked a quarrel with the victim and he was pushed to the pond and resultantly the victim died. His death was intentionally caused by both the accused, is the basis of the implication made for the offences as aforesaid. 3. After arrest, both the accused are now under judicial custody. Petitioner, it is stated, was arrested on 28.6.2011. His continued detention is not required for fair completion of the investigation of the crime and he is prepared to abide by any condition BA 6903/2011 3 imposed by this Court, is the submission of his learned counsel. Opposing the application, the learned Public Prosecutor submitted that both the accused indulge in criminal activities and the people in the locality are even afraid to give evidence against them. Initially, the case was registered as an unnatural death at the local police station, most probably, on account of none coming forward to give evidence against the petitioners. Subsequent investigation has revealed that the victim was last seen with the accused in the case, is the submission of the learned Public Prosecutor. Release of the petitioner (A2) at this stage, would hamper fair completion of the investigation of the crime, is the further submission. 4. Considering the submissions made by the petitioner and also the learned Public Prosecutor and taking note that the petitioner has been undergoing detention eversince his arrest, I find, by imposing sufficient conditions safeguarding and ensuring fair completion of the investigation, he can be released on bail at this stage.” BA 6903/2011 4 5. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, the duration of the judicial custody undergone by the petitioner, the nature of the offence and the present stage of investigation, I am of the view that bail can be granted to the petitioner. The petitioner shall be released on bail on his executing bond for ` 25,000/- with two solvent sureties for the like amount to the satisfaction of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class-II, Neyyattinkara, subject to the following conditions: A) The petitioner shall not enter into the limits of Parassala Police Station for a period of two months ; B) The petitioner shall report before the investigating officer between 9 A.M. and 11 A.M. on all Mondays, till the final report is filed or until further orders; C) The petitioner shall appear before the investigating officer for interrogation as and when required; D) The petitioner shall not try to influence the prosecution witnesses or tamper with the evidence; BA 6903/2011 5 E) The petitioner shall not commit any offence or indulge in any prejudicial activity while on bail; F) In case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, the bail shall be liable to be cancelled. The Bail Application is allowed as above. K.T.SANKARAN JUDGE csl