IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR THURSDAY, THE 3RD FEBRUARY 2011 / 14TH MAGHA 1932 Bail Appl..No. 715 of 2011() ------------------------------- CRIME NO. 1503/2010 OF IRINJALAKUDA POLICE STATION .................... PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.2:- ---------------------------------- ABILASH @ ABI,S/O. RAVI, VELLUPARAMBIL HOUSE, 10 STONE, THALIKULAM, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.A.C.DEVY RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:- ---------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. ADV. SRI. C.S. HRITHWIK, THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR, J. .................................................... Bail Application No.715 of 2011 ..................................................... Dated this the 3rd day of February, 2011. ORDER Petitioner, who is the 2nd accused in Crime No.1503 of 2010 of Irinjalakuda Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 457, 461 and 380 r/w Section 34 I.P.C., seeks his enlargement on bail. The occurrence took place on 30.11.2010. The petitioner was arrested on 04.01.2011. 2. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application contending inter alia that the petitioner and his uncle A1 have committed theft of holy relics from the Mapranam church on 30.11.2010 and the petitioner could be apprehended only on 04.01.2011 and there are three other cases in which the petitioner is involved and the subject matter of theft which is invaluable, has not been recovered so far. 3. Having regard to the gravity of the offences, nature of the allegations levelled against the petitioner, the relative conduct of the parties, the extent of the injury sustained, the propensities and antecedents of the petitioner, the sentiments of the near relatives of the victim and the other facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that if the petitioner B.A. No. 715/2011 : 2: 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. rv