IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA FRIDAY, THE 29TH AUGUST 2008 / 7TH BHADRA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 5294 of 2008() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.138/2008 OF NEDUPUZHA POLICE STATION .................... PETITIONER : 8TH ACCUSED ------------------------- BIJU 35 YEARS, S/O.PAULOSE KUNNUMEL HOUSE, PUTHOOR VILLAGE PUTHOOR DESOM, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.A.C.DEVY RESPONDENT: STATE ------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PTROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KREALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.C.K.SURESH THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. ------------------------------------------------------- Bail Application No.5294 of 2008 ------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 29th day of August, 2008 O R D E R This is the second application for bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Sections 395, 143, 147, 148 and 302 read with 149 and 120B of Indian Penal Code and 27 of the Arms Act. According to prosecution, there are two rival gunda groups. A person from one of such groups was murdered and hence as a retaliation to the said murder, another murder was committed by accused 1 to 7. Accused went to the place of occurrence for commission of offence in the auto rickshaw belonging to the petitioner. According to prosecution, the petitioner gave the auto rickshaw to the first accused with the full knowledge that the offence will be committed. The accused 1 to 7 and the petitioner had lunch together and thereafter, the accused proceeded for the commission of offence. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that the petitioner is the owner of the autorickshaw. But he has absolutely no connection with the crime. According to him, the BA No.5294/08 2 first accused took possession of the auto rickshaw by force from the petitioner. But, he was not aware of the commission of offence and he has no connection with the crime. The petitioner is having some problem in his both ears, since the diaphragm was injured and he needs medical treatment, it is submitted. The petitioner was arrested on 19.4.2008 and he is in custody since then. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that the petitioner does not belong to either of the rival gunda gang and nobody can any animosity towards him. Therefore, it may not be correct to say that his life is in danger. He is prepared to abide by any condition as imposed by this Court and he is ready to reside outside Thrissur Sessions Division, if the court so pleases to order. 4. This petition is strongly opposed. The learned Director General of Prosecution submitted that this is a most unfit case to grant bail. Though other co-accused had applied for bail, this court had dismissed the applications filed by them realising the fact that if the accused are granted bail, there will be bloodshed again. Considering the nature of offence, bail may not be granted, especially since enmity between the two goonda groups BA No.5294/08 3 has not subsided so far and as per the intelligence report, the other group is waiting for release of any one of the accused to react. Therefore, this petition is strongly opposed. 5. All the above facts and contentions were considered in the earlier bail application. On hearing both sides, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner at this stage. The petitioner may get treatment through the jail authorities from the hospital. This petition is dismissed. K.HEMA, JUDGE csl