IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR WEDNESDAY, THE 12TH JANUARY 2011 / 22ND POUSHA 1932 Bail Appl..No. 78 of 2011() ------------------------------- (CRIME NO. 504/2006 CHENGANNUR POLICE STATION, CHENGANNUR, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT) ...... APPALICANT/ACCUSED NO.2 --------------------------------- AMAR CHANDRAKANTH SHITTOLE, AGED 28 YEARS, S/O.CHANDRAKANTH RAMACHANDRA SHITTOLE,NEVARI ROAD, SHIVAJI NAGAR, KHANAPUR TALUK, SANGALI DISTRICT BY ADV. SRI.PAUL ABRAHAM VAKKANAL RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANTS ---------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM - 682 031. 2. THE C.I.OF POLICE CHENGANNUR POLICE STATION, CHENGANNUR, MAVELIKKARA - 690 101. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.M.S.BREEZE THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: svs V. RAMKUMAR, J. .................................................... Bail Application No. 78 of 2011 ..................................................... Dated this the 12th day of January, 2011. ORDER Petitioner, who is the 2nd accused in Crime No. 504 of 2006 of Chengannur Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 452 and 395 I.P.C., seeks his enlargement on bail. The petitioner was arrested on 09.11.2010 in connection with another case and was formally arrested in this case on 11.11.2010. 2. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application contending inter alia that the petitioner who was arrested in connection with another crime on 09.11.2010 and who was formally arrested in this case on 11.11.2010, had committed theft of valuables from the gold purifying centre at Chengannur worth `29.54 lakhs. 3. Having regard to the gravity of the offences, nature of the allegations levelled against the petitioner, the relative conduct of the parties, the extent of the injury sustained, the propensities of the petitioner, the sentiments of the near relatives of the victim and the other facts and circumstances of B.A. No. 78/2011 : 2: the case, I am of the view that if the petitioner is released on bail, he will definitely influence and intimidate the prosecution witnesses. There is also the likelihood of the petitioner making himself scarce and fleeing from justice. I am, therefore, not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner at this stage. This petition is accordingly dismissed. V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE. rv