IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR TUESDAY, THE 23RD MARCH 2010 / 2ND CHAITHRA 1932 Crl.MC.No. 123 of 2010(A) ------------------------------------ [CMP.NOS. 3211/2009 & 4545/2009 OF JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-V, KOZHIKODE] .................... PETITIONER: ------------------- SAINABA D/O.AHAMMEDKOYA, ASSAMAKKANTAKATH, FEROKE COLLEGE P.O, PARUTHIPARA. BY ADV. MR.P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN. RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT: ----------------------------------------------- 1. SAYID MUHAMMED HAMEED, PANACHIKKAL HOUSE, VAZHAKALA, KAKKANAD,ERNAKULAM. 2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE VANITHA POLICE STATION,KOZHIKODE. 3. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE FEROKE POLICE STATION, KOZHIKODE. 4. STATE OF KERALA ,REP BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM,. R1 BY ADV. MR.A.P.SUBHASH, R2 TO R4 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR. K.S. SIVAKUMAR. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: prv. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. ------------------------------------------ CRL.M.C.NO.123 OF 2010 ------------------------------------------ Dated 23rd March 2010 O R D E R Petitioner is the de facto complainant and first respondent the accused in C.C.1055/2009 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate-V, Kozhikode. First respondent was granted bail. While on bail, petitioner filed C.M.P.3211/2009 for cancellation of the bail contending that on 12/6/2009 and 15/6/2009 first respondent threatened her over phone. It is alleged that he is trying to influence the investigation by intimidating the witnesses. First respondent filed an objection before the learned Magistrate denying the allegation. By Annexure-D order learned Magistrate Crmc 123/10 2 dismissed the petition. This petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure contending that learned Magistrate dismissed the petition for the sole reason that investigation was completed and final report was submitted without considering the question whether bail is liable to be cancelled due to threat made by first respondent effecting investigation and trial. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and first respondent were heard. 3. When petitioner asserts that she was threatened by first respondent on 12/6/2009 and 15/6/2009, first respondent denied the case. Final report has already been submitted and offences taken cognizance. Question now is whether by continuing on bail first respondent would interfere with a fair trial. On the facts Crmc 123/10 3 and circumstances of the case, I find no reason to interfere with Annexure-D order. First respondent is directed not the threaten or make attempt to influence any of the witnesses. If there is any attempt to threaten or influence any witness hereafter, petitioner is at liberty to approach the Magistrate to cancel the bail. Petition is disposed. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE. uj.