IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA FRIDAY, THE 25TH JULY 2008 / 3RD SRAVANA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 4676 of 2008(F) ------------------------------------- CP.30/2006 of ADDL.C.J.M., ERNAKULAM CRIME NO.137/2006 OF HILL PALACE POLICE STATION .................... PETITIONER/6TH ACCUSED : ---------------------------------- SURESH, S/O. MOHANAN, MOOSARIKUNNEL HOUSE, NEAR KARITHAS HOSPITAL PEROOR VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT BY ADV. SRI.M.SHYJU RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT : -------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM 2. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE HILL PALACE POLICE STATION BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.C.K.SURESH DIRECTOR GENERAL OF PROSECUTION SRI.P.G.THAMPI THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. ------------------------------ B.A. No.4676 OF 2008 ------------------------------ Dated this the 25th day of July, 2008 O R D E R This petition is for bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Sections 120B, 143, 147, 148, 449, 324, 326, 307, 302, 427, 201 read with Section 149 IPC, Sections 3 and 4 of Explosive Substances Act and Section 27 of Arms Act. According to the prosecution, petitioner along with other accused formed an unlawful assembly armed with deadly weapons and with a common object of commit murder and other offences trespassed into a cassette shop run by the deceased Ajeesh and caused fatal injuries to him on 06.03.2006 and he succumbed to the said injuries. A crime was registered against the petitioner and others (total 11 accused) on the basis of a statement given by an eye witness. After inflicting the injuries, the accused destroyed the cassette shop and also the provision shop of the father of the deceased by throwing bomb. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that though the petitioner was available in the locality and he is an auto rickshaw driver by profession and the incident allegedly occurred as B.A.4676/2008 2 early as on 06.03.2006, he was not arrested until after 2 ½ years. He was arrested only on 11.05.2008. According to him the petitioner was not named in the F.I.R. but another person was shown as the accused but later the petitioner was implicated in the offence as 6th accused. It is also submitted that the 4th accused was granted bail by this Court as per the order dated 30.05.2008 in B.A.No.3323/2008. It is also submitted that charge sheet has already been laid and the trail is going on, and the case against the other accused were tried, and Accused Nos.8, 10 and 11 were acquitted. In such circumstances, the petitioner prays that he may be granted bail. 4. This petition is vehemently opposed. Learned Director General of Prosecution submitted that the manner in which the offence is committed, shocked the conscience of the public. This happened in the broad day light. Eleven persons trespassed into the shop of the deceased Ajeesh armed with deadly weapons, committed various offences and they also destroyed the shop of the deceased as well as his father by throwing bombs. Thereafter accused Nos.1, 4 and 6 were absconding. They could not be arrested for about 2 ½ years. They were arrested only recently on B.A.4676/2008 3 11.05.2008. The trial against the co-accused is over except accused Nos.8, 10 and 11 and other accused were convicted. But, the case against the absconding accused could not be proceeded with. 5. It is also submitted that the 4th accused obtained an order from this Court by making false representations and suppressing material facts. Reference was made to Order in B.A.No.3323/2008, it is pointed out that the said petition was filed by the 4th accused, suppressing the fact that the offence include offence under Section 302 IPC. It was also alleged in that petition that the 4th accused was arrested as early as on 06.05.2008, but he was arrested only on 11.05.2008. The respondent is taking steps to cancel the bail which was fraudulently obtained from this Court and hence, it was submitted that granting of bail to the 4th accused may not be made a ground to grant bail to the petitioner. 6. The 4th accused as well as the petitioner and the 1st accused were absconding for a long period and non bailable warrants were issued from the Court. Learned D.G.P. also submitted that if the petitioner is released on bail, it will not be possible to arrest the 1st accused who is still absconding, and it is likely that the petitioner will tamper with evidence by influencing or threatening B.A.4676/2008 4 witnesses. On hearing both sides I am satisfied that it may not be fit to grant bail to the petitioner at this stage, taking into consideration the various submissions made by the learned D.G.P. The fact that the 4th accused was granted bail cannot be made a ground to grant bail to the petitioner, in the peculiar facts of this case, especially since learned D.G.P. submitted that steps are being taken to cancel his bail. The fact that the petitioner requires treatment also, in such circumstances, does not persuade me to grant bail to him, since arrangements for treatment can be made available to him even during detention. The petition is dismissed. K.HEMA, JUDGE pac