IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR TUESDAY, THE 9TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 18TH KARTHIKA 1932 Bail Appl..No. 7112 of 2010() ----------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 30/10/2010 IN ORDER IN CMP.9608/2010 of J.M.F.C.-I,NEYYATINKARA CRIME NO.1492/2010 OF NEYYATINKARA POLICE STATION .................... PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1,5 AND 6 ------------------------------------------------- 1. MOHAMMED RAFFY, S/O.ZAINULABDEEN, HAIRANNEESA MANZIL, PLAVILA PUTHEN VEEDU, VAZHIMUKKU, THALAYAL DESOM, ATHIYANNOOR VILLAGE. 2. KAMALUDEEN, S/O.ABOOBACKER, KEKKUTTY COTTAGE, VETTUVILAKOM, VAZHAMUKKU, KOTTUKAL VILLAGE. 3. ABDUL HAKKIM, S/O.MUHAMMED MUSTAFFA, MELE KUZHYVILAKKATH VEEDU, VAZHIMUKKU, ATHIYANNOOR VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.S.RAJEEV RESPONDENT(S):/ COMPLAINANT ------------------------------------------------ STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM (CRIME NO.1492/2010 OF NEYYATTINKARA POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT). PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR.M.S.BREEZE THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: dmb V. RAMKUMAR, J. .................................. Bail Application No.7112 of 2010 ..................................................... Dated: 9th day of November, 2010 ORDER Petitioners, who are accused Nos. 1, 5 and 6 in Crime No.1492/2010 of Neyyatinkara Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 341, 323, 324 and 308 read with 27 of the Arms Act, seek their enlargement on bail. The occurrence took place on 27.10.2010. The petitioners were arrested on 28.10.2010. 2. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application contending inter alia that 11 persons injured in the occurrence in which swords, iron rods etc. were used by the accused. 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) dmb