IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR THURSDAY, THE 27TH JANUARY 2011 / 7TH MAGHA 1932 Bail Appl..No. 489 of 2011() ---------------------------- CRIME NO.792 OF 2010 OF KALPETTA POLICE STATION CRMP.100/2011 of DISTRICT COURT, KALPETTA .................... PETITIONER ------------------------------ K.RAVI, AGED 49 YEARS, S/O.VASU K.,KOTTAKALATHIL HOUSE, KADALUNDI NAGAR, P.O.VALLIKUNNU, MALAPPURAM BY ADV. SRI.O.V.MANIPRASAD SRI.SAJU J PANICKER SRI.LIJO KURIAN JOSE RESPONDENT:COMPLAINANT --------------- STATE OF KERALA (SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KALPETTA POLCIE STATION CRIME NO.792/2010) REP.BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM-682031. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.C.S.HIRTHWIK THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR, J. -------------------------------------------------- Bail Application No.489 of 2011 --------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 27th day of January, 2011 ORDER The petitioner, who is accused No.14 in Crime No.792 of 2010 of Kalpetta Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 419, 420, 465, 468, 471 & 120(b) read with Section 34 I.P.C., seeks his enlargement on bail. The petitioner was arrested on 22/12/2010. 2. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application contending inter alia that the petitioner acted as the middleman in the racket consisting of A9 and others who on the strength of forged advise memos and identity cards purportedly issued by the Kerala Public Service Commission procured false appointment orders to A1 to A8 in the Revenue Department of the Government in Wayanad District. 3. Having regard to the gravity of the offences, nature of the allegations levelled against the petitioner, the relative conduct of the parties, the propensities of the B.A.No.489/2011 2 petitioner and the other facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that 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. I am, therefore, not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner at this stage. This petition is accordingly dismissed. V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE skj