IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 25TH KARTHIKA 1933 Bail Appl..No. 9281 of 2011() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.388/2011 OF MANNAR POLICE STATION .................... PETITIONERS/2ND & 3RD ACCUSED : ----------------------------------------- 1. SUDHEESH KUMAR, AGED 34 YEARS, S/O.GOPALAN, SUDHEESH BHAVANAM, KUTTAMPEROOR MURI, MANNAR VILLAGE. 2. SURESH KUMAR, AGED 32 YEARS, S/O.GOPALAN, SURESH BHAVANAM, KUTTAMPEROOR MURI, MANNAR VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.P.HARIDAS SMT.S.SIKKY SMT.LIJI KUTTAPPAN RESPONDENT(S): STATE AND COMPLAINANT ------------------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM 682 031. 2. THE S.I. OF POLICE STATION, MANNAR POLICE STATION 689 622. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.N.SURESH THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. --------------------------- B.A.No.9281 of 2011 --------------------------- Dated this the 16th day of November, 2011 O R D E R This is an application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioners are accused Nos.2 and 3 in Crime No.388 of 2011 of Mannar Police Station. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioners are under Sections 302 and 323 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The prosecution case is the following : The deceased was a fish vendor. He and his wife were engaged in fish vending in the market. The accused requested the deceased to hide ganja brought by them. The deceased refused. On account of the same, the accused persons attacked the deceased and manhandled him. The deceased sustained internal injuries. The accused persons did not even allow the other people in the market to save the deceased or to take him to hospital. The wife of the deceased somehow managed to take the deceased to the hospital. The deceased BA 9281/11 2 succumbed to the injuries on 23.8.2011. 4. The petitioners were arrested on 8.9.2011 and they were remanded to judicial custody. 5. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the investigation is not over. He also submitted that the accused persons are involved in several other cases. It is also submitted that the accused in the present case threatened the eye witness that he would be done away with, if he says the truth to the police. 6. The investigation of the case is not over. The accused persons are having criminal antecedents. There is even an allegation that they threatened the eye witness in the present case. If the petitioners are released on bail, it is most likely that they would intimidate and terrorise the witnesses and tamper with the evidence. For the aforesaid reasons, the Bail Application is dismissed. K.T.SANKARAN JUDGE csl