IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN WEDNESDAY, THE 20TH JULY 2011 / 29TH ASHADHA 1933 Bail Appl..No. 5631 of 2011() ----------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN BA.4974/2011 Dated 01/07/2011 CRMP.5028/2011 of J.M.F.C.-III, PUNALUR CRIME NO.176 OF 2009 OF PUNALUR POLICE STATION, KOLLAM DISTRICT .................... PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.11 -------------------------------------------- SANTHOSHKUMAR @ CONTAINER SANTHOSH, S/O. ANANDAN, SANTHOSH BHAVAN, MANGALAM NAGAR, MOONNAMKUTTY, ARUNNOTTIMANGALAM, MANGADU. BY ADV. SRI.P.S.SREEDHARAN PILLAI RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT/STATE -------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY P.P.SRI.TEKCHAND THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. --------------------------------- B.A.No.5631 OF 2011 --------------------------------- Dated this the 20th day of July, 2011 ORDER This is an application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Petitioner is the 11th accused in Crime No.176 of 2009 of the Punalur Police Station. 2. The offences alleged against the accused are under Sections 143, 147, 148, 326, 341, 307, 109 and 120B read with 149 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act. 3. The date of occurrence was on 24.2.2009. The petitioner was formally arrested on 3.6.2011. 4. The prosecution case is that on 24.2.2009 at 11.45 A.M, the defacto complainant (Biju) was attacked by eight persons with deadly weapons like sword. Biju sustained B.A.No.5631 OF 2011 2 serious injuries. In the First Information Statement, Biju stated that the accused Nos.1 and 2 and six identifiable persons attacked him. 5. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the investigation revealed that there is some doubt about the complicity of the accused Nos. 1 and 2 in the offence. A relative of the defacto complainant, namely, Anirudhan revealed that accused Nos.1 and 2 were not involved in the offence. The defacto complainant Biju filed W.P(Crl.) No.5838 of 2010 alleging that the investigation was not proceeding properly and that the police deliberately wanted to exclude accused Nos.1 and 2 from the array of the accused. In that Writ Petition, an affidavit sworn to by Anirudhan was produced to show that Anirudhan disputed the statement alleged to have been made to the police that the accused Nos.1 and 2 are not involved in the crime. The Writ Petition was disposed of on 3.3.2011 directing the investigation to be continued by an officer who is above the rank of Circle Inspector of Police. The investigation is continuing. B.A.No.5631 OF 2011 3 6. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that during the investigation, it was revealed that 11th accused (Santhoshkumar @ Container Santhosh) had instructed the accused Nos.3 to 10 to attack the defacto complainant in the present case on account of the rivalry between the defacto complainant and the 11th accused. It is stated by the learned Public Prosecutor that as per the direction given by the 11th accused, a conspiracy took place and the offence was perpetrated by the accused. The learned Public Prosecutor also submitted that the accused Nos.3 to 10 are members of a quotation gang and the petitioner (11th accused) mobilized that quotation gang into action. 7. Sri.P.S.Sreedharan Pillai, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was falsely implicated in the case after his arrest in another case, where the allegation was that one V.B.Unnithan, a reporter of the Mathrubhoomi daily was attacked. It is submitted that the petitioner is not liked by many of the police officers of Kollam and therefore, he was falsely implicated. The learned counsel also submitted that the statements alleged to have been given by some persons cannot be relied on at all to implicate the petitioner in the crime. It is B.A.No.5631 OF 2011 4 submitted that there is no material to indicate that the petitioner was involved in the offence. The counsel also submitted that the petitioner is in jail for the last more than one month and there is no justification for the continued detention. 8. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the petitioner is a highly influential person and he has close connection with some of the police officers and if the petitioner is released on bail, there is every likelihood of the witnesses being intimidated and influenced. The learned Public Prosecutor also submitted that the petitioner is also involved in another crime and he is undergoing detention in that case. 9. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case and also taking note of the submissions made by the learned Public Prosecutor, I do not think it proper to grant bail to the petitioner at this stage. The allegation that the petitioner is a highly influential person and he is capable of influencing and intimidating the witnesses, cannot be brushed aside. The possibility of the petitioner making himself scarce, if released on B.A.No.5631 OF 2011 5 bail, also cannot be ruled out. The crime was registered in 2009. Even now, the investigation is not complete. The petitioner was included in the array of accused at later point of time. Directions were issued by this court in the judgment dated 3.3.2011 in WP(Crl.)No.5838 of 2010 to continue the investigation by another police officer. It is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that the investigation is in progress . At this stage, it is not feasible to release the petitioner on bail. For the aforesaid reasons, the Bail Application is, dismissed. K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE. cms