IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN THURSDAY, THE 23RD JULY 2009 / 1ST SRAVANA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 3594 of 2009() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.83/2009 OF BADIADKA POLICE STATION PETITIONER :ACCUSED NO.1 (IN CUSTODY) ---------------------------------------------------------------- SHAREEF @ MOHAMMED SHEREEF, S/O.YUSUF, THAHIRA MANZIL, HIDAYATH NAGAR, UPPALA, KASARGOD. BY ADV. SRI.K.K.MOHAMED RAVUF RESPONDENT(S): STATE ---------------------------------- THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY STATION HOUSE OFFICER, BADIADKA POLICE STATION, KASARGOD THROUGH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.M.S.BREEZ THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. ----------------------------- B.A.No.3594 of 2009 ------------------------------- Dated this the 23rd day of July, 2009 ORDER This is an application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner is the first accused in Crime No.83 of 2009 of Badiadka Police Station. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 326 and 307 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The incident occurred on 27.4.2009. The petitioner was arrested on 15.6.2009 and he is in judicial custody. It is submitted that only accused Nos.1 and 2 were arrested. There are ten other accused persons involved in the case. 4. Learned public prosecutor vehemently opposed the Bail Application. It is submitted that the petitioner is involved in 5 other cases including abkari offences and the offence under the PDPP Act. If he is released on bail, it is most likely that he would influence or intimidate the prosecution witnesses and tamper with the evidence, submits the learned public prosecutor. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the BA No.3594/2009 2 petitioner is suffering from psoriasis and that even on the date of the incident, he had an appointment with a reputed doctor. The medical certificate is also produced. According to the counsel, the medical certificate and other records would indicate that it is not likely that the petitioner was involved in the case. 4. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner at this stage. The petitioner is involved in several other cases. The submission made by the learned public prosecutor as mentioned above cannot be brushed aside in the facts and circumstances of the case. For the aforesaid reasons, the Bail application is dismissed. K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE csl