IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR MONDAY, THE 31ST JANUARY 2011 / 11TH MAGHA 1932 Bail Appl..No. 395 of 2011() -------------------------------- (CRIME NO.792/2010 OF KALPETTA POLICE STATION, WYNAD DISTRICT C.M.P. NO.203/2011 OF CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, KALPETTA) ........ PETITIONER/PETITIONER/8TH ACCUSED ------------------------------------------------ SHAMHSEERA K.B., AGED 27 YEARS, W/O.MUHAMMED ASHRAF, KARUTHEDATH HOUSE, EDAKKARA POST, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.V.GEORGE(PUTHIYIDAM) RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT ------------------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, (SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KALPETTA POLICE STATION), REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.C.S.HRITHWIK THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: svs V.RAMKUMAR, J. --------------------------------------------------- Bail Application No.395 of 2011 ----------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 31st day of January, 2011 ORDER The petitioner, who is accused No.8 in Crime No.792 of 2010 of Kalpetta Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 419, 420, 465, 468 & 471 I.P.C., seeks her enlargement on bail. The petitioner surrendered on 11/01/2011. 2. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application contending inter alia that the petitioner who is the 8th accused and who is a lady had illegally secured employment in Government service in the Revenue Department in Wayanad District sometime in April, 2010 on the strength of forged advise memo and identity card purportedly issued by the Kerala Public Service Commission. The petitioner who has been absconding surrendered before the Magistrate concerned only on 11/01/2011 pursuant to the direction of this Court. 3. Having regard to the gravity of the offences, nature of the allegations levelled against the petitioner, Bail Appln.No.395/2011 : 2 : the relative conduct of the parties, the propensities of the petitioner and the other facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that if the petitioner is released on bail, she will definitely influence and intimidate the prosecution witnesses. There is also the likelihood of the petitioner making herself 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 skj