IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN FRIDAY, THE 26TH MARCH 2010 / 5TH CHAITHRA 1932 Bail Appl..No. 1802 of 2010() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.219/2010 OF VALAPATTANAM POLICE STATION .................... PETITIONER/ACCUSED -------------------------------------- K.V.ASHARUDHEEN, AGED 21 YEARS, S/O.SOOPY, KUNHUM VALAPPIL HOUSE, P.O.KUTTIYATTOOR, ANAPEEDIKA, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.SUNIL V.MOHAMMED RESPONDENT(S): STATE -------------------- THE STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VALAPATTANAM POLICE STATION, THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.M.S.BREEZ THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. --------------------------------------------- B.A.No.1802 of 2010 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 26th day of March, 2010 O R D E R This is an application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner is one of the accused in Crime No.219 of 2010 of Valapattanam Police Station, Kannur District. 2. The offences alleged against the accused are under Sections 143, 147, 148, 294(b), 341, 323, 324, 326 and 308 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The prosecution case is the following: The de facto complainant is a lawyer by profession. He is practicing at Kannur. He is a sympathizer of the Communist Party of India (Marxist). At about 6.45 PM on 27.2.2010, while he was travelling in a bus, about 20 persons intercepted the vehicle and attacked the de facto complainant with iron rods and sticks. He was pulled out of the vehicle and he was beaten by the accused. When the de facto complainant tried to escape by running, he was followed by the accused persons and he was manhandled. The motive alleged is that the de facto complainant and certain BA No.1802/2010 2 other persons were responsible for catching hold of some of the accused who were indulged in illegal transportation of sand. Those persons who were engaged in transportation of sand were arrested and the vehicle was seized. It is alleged that the assailants belong to NDF, a political party. It is also alleged that even at that time those persons had threatened to “deal” with the petitioner adequately for having informed the police about transportation of sand. 4. The petitioner was arrested on 28.2.2010 and he was remanded to judicial custody. 5. The Bail Application was vehemently opposed by the learned Public Prosecutor. It is submitted that only three of the accused persons were arrested. The investigation is in progress. If the petitioner is released on bail, he would try to influence or intimidate the prosecution witnesses. There is also a likelihood of the petitioner making himself scarce. The learned Public Prosecutor also submitted that if the petitioner is released on bail, the chance of arresting the other accused also would be adversely affected. 6. In the facts and circumstances, I do not think that it is BA No.1802/2010 3 proper to release the petitioner on bail at this stage of the investigation. Taking into account the nature and gravity of the offence also, I do not think it is proper to grant bail to the petitioner at this stage. For the aforesaid reasons, the Bail Application is dismissed. K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE csl