IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR WEDNESDAY, THE 8TH APRIL 2009 / 18TH CHAITHRA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 1850 of 2009() ----------------------------- CRIME NO. 441/2008 of KADAVANTHARA POLICE STATION .................... PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.1:- ----------------------------------- SANHTHOSH MADHAVAN,4B, FLAT ROYAL STADIUM,KADAVANTHRA, ERNAKULAM. (UNDER JUDICIAL CUSTODY) BY ADV. MR. B.RAMAN PILLAI MR. R.ANIL MR. ANIL K.MOHAMMED MR. SUJESH MENON V.B. MR. JOSEPH P.ALEX MR. SHYAM ARAVIND MR. T.ANIL KUMAR RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:- ----------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. MR. GOVINDAN NAIR, DIRECTOR GENERAL OF PROSECUTION THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/04/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR, J. ===================== B.A. No. 1850 of 2009 ===================== Dated, this the 8th day of April, 2009. ORDER Petitioner who is the 1st accused in Crime No.441 of 2008 of Kadavanthara Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 366(A), 376, 366 and 342 IPC r/w Section 34 IPC seeks his enlargement on bail. The petitioner was arrested on 13.05.2008. 2. The application was opposed on behalf of the prosecution. 3. Having regard to the nature of the allegations levelled against the petitioner, the relative conduct of the parties, the nature of the legal injury sustained and the other facts and circumstances of the case, 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. 4. It is true that the petitioner has been in custody from 13.05.2008 onwards. But then, his earlier bail applications were dismissed with observations to the effect that the petitioner will have to stand trial as an undertrial prisoner. It B.A. No. 1850/2009 : 2 : is also true that the petitioner may have to adduce defence evidence while in custody. But then, as rightly pointed out by the Director General of Prosecution, even while the petitioner has been in custody, there were complaints from the witnesses that they were intimidated. If so, by releasing the petitioner at this stage of the trial, he can do more havoc. In the light of the decision reported in RAJESH RANJAN YADAV @ PAPPU YADAV v. CBI through ITS DIRECTOR (AIR 2007 SC 451), I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner who will have to stand trial as an undertrial prisoner until the Sessions Cases against him are disposed of and subject to the nature of their disposal. 5. Having regard to the fact that the petitioner is in custody, the trial Judge concerned shall give him sufficient time for adducing defence evidence in case any request is made in that behalf. With this liberty, this petition is dismissed. This petition is accordingly dismissed. Dated this the 8th day of April, 2009. V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE. B.A. No. 1850/2009 : 3 : rv