IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN THURSDAY, THE 18TH AUGUST 2011 / 27TH SRAVANA 1933 Bail Appl..No. 6431 of 2011() ----------------------------- CMP.2936/2011 of J.M.F.C., HARIPAD .................... (S): ACCUSED --------------------------- ABRAHAM THOMAS VARGHESE @ EBY, S/O. THANKACHAN, GRILIYAS BHAVAN, PULIMOODU, NADUVATTOM.P.O, PALLIPPAD VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.K.HARILAL SRI.R.GOPAN RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANTS --------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, HARIPAD POLICE STATION. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.V.TEKCHAND THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. --------------------------------------- B.A.No.6431 of 2011 --------------------------------------- Dated this the 18th day of August, 2011 ORDER This is an application for bail filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Petitioner is the accused in crime No.436/2011 of Haripad Police Station registered for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. Prosecution case in short is that the petitioner committed murder of his wife, cutting her with a chopper, inflicting nearly 20 cuts and, thereby, causing her death. He was arrested on 8.6.2011, and produced before the Court the next day was remanded to judicial custody. It is alleged that the crime was committed since he entertained doubts that his wife maintained illicit relationship with a boy friend, studying with her in the nursing college at Bangalore. 3. Petitioner has been undergoing detention from 9.6.11 onwards and the investigation of the crime is practically over with all material witnesses examined and their statements recorded, is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner, to seek for enlargement of the petitioner on bail at B.A.No.6431 of 2011 2 this stage. It is submitted that his release is essential to defend the accusation made. Strongly opposing the application, the learned Public Prosecutor submits that the release of the petitioner would hamper the investigation which is still continuing. Since the prosecution case mainly rests on the close relatives of the petitioner, if he is released at this stage there is every chance of the petitioner to influencing the said witnesses and thereby causing obstruction not only to the investigation but also fair trial of the case is the submission of the learned Public Prosecutor. If he is released, the investigating agency is apprehensive that the public at large would take the law into their hands and eve indulge in acts detrimental harming the person of the petitioner, as the murder involved, which was brutal, has raised passion infuriating public anger, threatening the peace at the place of occurrence. It is submitted that his release at this stage may not be ordered. 4. Considering the submissions made and taking note the brutal murder of the victim involved in the case, it appears the enlargement of the petitioner on bail at this stage, even imposing stringent conditions, would create problems for the B.A.No.6431 of 2011 3 investigating agency and also cause threat to the life and property of the petitioner. The apprehension expressed by the Public Prosecutor that if he is released at this stage, the petitioner is likely to influence the witnesses who are stated to be close relatives cannot also be brushed aside. I find the request made for release of the petitioner on bail cannot be allowed at this stage. Petition is dismissed. sd/- S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE. rkc //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE