IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN WEDNESDAY, THE 23RD NOVEMBER 2011 / 2ND AGRAHAYANA 1933 Bail Appl..No. 9068 of 2011() ----------------------------- CP.34/2011 of J.M.F.C.,ALATHUR CRIME NO.333/2005 OF ALATHUR POLICE STATION .................... APPLICANT/ACCUSED NO.11: ---------------------------- NISHIL, AGED 33 YEARS, S/O.RAMACHANDRAN, PAKWAPPADU VEEDU, LAKKIDI, OTTAPPALAM, PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.V.A.JOHNSON (VARIKKAPPALLIL) RESPONDENT: RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT. -------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM. REPRESENTING THE CI OF POLICE, ALATHUR POLICE STATION, PALAKKAD. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.R.RANJITH THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. --------------------------------------------- Bail Appln.No.9068 of 2011 ---------------------------------------------- Dated this the 23rd day of November, 2011 ORDER This is an application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner is accused No.11 in Crime No.333 of 2005 of Alathur Police Station, Palakkad District. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 143, 147, 148, 120-B & 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act. 3. The prosecution case is that on 26/07/2005, while the deceased was travelling on a motor bike, the accused persons came in a car and attacked him with deadly weapons like sword. The deceased sustained injuries and he succumbed to the injuries on 31/07/2005. The crime was originally registered under Section 326 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. On the death of the deceased, the Sections of offences were altered. 4. It is alleged that the deceased and his brother were running single digit lottery business. Accused Nos.1 and 2 Bail Appln.No.9068/2011 : 2 : were also in that field of business and the offence was committed due to business rivalry. The offence was committed with the help of hired goondas. The petitioner was released on bail in November, 2005. The petitioner violated the terms of the order granting bail. On the application of Circle Inspector of Police, bail granted to the petitioner was cancelled as per the order dated 29/09/2006. There is controversy as to what transpired after cancellation of bail. According to the petitioner, he was arrested and produced before the learned Magistrate and bail was granted to him on 18/04/2007. According to the learned Public Prosecutor, after cancellation of bail, the petitioner could be arrested only on 08/11/2011. Going by the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, it is seen that the petitioner was produced before the learned Magistrate on 18/04/2007. On going through the order dated 17th October, 2011 passed by the learned Sessions Judge and the order dated 12th September, 2011 passed by the learned Magistrate, it is clear that the petitioner was arrested even before 08/11/2011. On a perusal of the aforesaid orders as well as the statement filed by the Government Pleader, it is fairly clear that the petitioner Bail Appln.No.9068/2011 : 3 : absconded. He could not be arrested. With great difficulty he was arrested and produced before Court. His arrest was made possible only after coming to know that he was arrested in Crime No.875 of 2008 and 876 of 2008 of Alathur Police Station. It is stated that on production warrant, the petitioner was produced before the Magistrate's Court on 08/11/2011. 5. In the statement filed by the Detective Inspector, Crime Branch CID, HHW-II, Sub Unit, Palakkad, it is stated that the petitioner is involved in the following crimes:- “i) Ottapalam PS Crime No.241/06 U/s 341, 326, 427, 308 r/w 34 IPC (later he was acquitted) ii) Ottapalam PS Crime 875/08 U/s 457 and 392 IPC iii) Ottapalam PS Crime 876/08 U/s 394 IPC iv) Shornur PS Crime 245/06 U/s 27 of Indian Arms Act. v) Pazhayannur PS Crime 411/06 U/s 395 & 397 IPC (A1 Nishil, 29.11.06) vi) Cherplassery PS Crime 489/06 U/s 143, 147, 148, 449, 302, 120(B) and section 5 of the Explosive Substance Act and 27 of the Indian Arms Act.” Bail Appln.No.9068/2011 : 4 : 6. Because of the non-appearance of the petitioner, the trial of the case could not be completed. The case against him was split up. The crime is of the year 2005. Though the petitioner was granted bail, he violated the conditions. He is involved in several other crimes. If the petitioner is released on bail, it would not be possible to complete the trial. It is most likely that the petitioner would abscond and make himself scarce. For the aforesaid reasons, the Bail Application is dismissed. K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE skj