IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN FRIDAY, THE 5TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 16TH MAGHA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 561 of 2010() -------------------------------- CRIME NO. 1/2010 OF RANNY POLICE STATION ..................... PETITIONERS/APPLICANTS : --------------------------------- 1. TINTU CHANDI, AGED 20 YEARS S/O.CHANDI @ SHAJI, NELLIMUTTIL HOUSE, VAIKKOM, RANNY. 2. JENATE JAMES, AGED 30 YEARS S/O.KURIAN JAMES, THOMBUMANNIL HOUSE VAIKKOM, RANNY. BY ADV. SRI.MVS.NAMBOOTHIRY RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM. 2. SRI.VIDYADHARAN, CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, RANNY. BY SRI. V. TEKCHAND PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T. SANKARAN, J. --------------------------- B.A. No. 561 of 2010 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 5th day of February, 2010 O R D E R The petitioners had filed B.A. No.137/2010, which was dismissed by the order dated 20/1/2010. For the sake of convenience, the order dated 20/1/2010 is extracted below: “ This is an application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioners are accused Nos.4 and 5 in Crime No.1 of 2010 of Ranny Police Station. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioners are under Sections 143, 147, 148, 294(b), 333 and 307 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The gist of the prosecution case is the following: During the midnight of 31.12.2009 and the early hours of 1.1.2010, several people were celebrating new year. The Sub Inspector of Police, who was on duty, heard some persons uttering words in obscene language. He asked those people to stop the same. They did not obey. The Sub Inspector of Police informed the Circle Inspector of Police. The Circle Inspector of Police came to the spot. Accused Nos.1 and 2 against whom the Circle Inspector had booked a case on an earlier occasion, used that opportunity and attacked the Circle Inspector of Police. They shouted to kill him and the other accused obeyed the call made by accused Nos.1 and 2.They pelted stones against the police personnel who sustained injuries. The Circle Inspector of Police, who was injured, was taken to Marthomma Hospital. After giving first aid, he was taken to Pushpagiri Hospital, B.A. No. 561/2010 2 Thiruvananthapuram. 4. The Circle Inspector of Police was in an unconscious state in Pushpagiri Medical College Hospital for six days and he was in the Intensive Care Unit for a period of 9 days. He was discharged from the hospital only on 13.1.2009. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that even now he has not resumed to his duties. The injuries noted by the Pushpagiri Medical College Hospital on the Circle Inspector of Police are the following: “(i) Lacerated wound sutured of length 5 cm. over right fronto temporal region with contusion (ii) Left frontal EDH and right tempero parietal EDH (iii) Pneumocephalus (iv) Fracture involving left temporal bone extending to right temporal bone (v) Fracture undisplaced fracture of left zygomatic arch. (vi) Fracture lateral wall of right orbit.” 5. The investigation is in progress. It is submitted that if the petitioners are released on bail, it would adversely affect the proper investigation of the case. It is submitted that there is every likelihood that the petitioners may indulge in tampering with evidence and influencing or intimidating the witnesses. 6. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not think it is proper and just to grant bail to the petitioners at this stage. As rightly submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor, if the petitioners are released on bail at this stage, it is likely that they may indulge in activities to intimidate or influence the witnesses or to tamper with evidence. B.A. No. 561/2010 3 The investigation of the case would be adversely affected, if the petitioners are released on bail at this stage. For the aforesaid reasons, the Bail Application is dismissed.” 2. This Bail Application was filed on 28/1/2010. The investigation is still continuing. There is not much change in the circumstances. I do not think that there is any justification in filing this Bail Application on the 8th day of the dismissal of the earlier Bail Application on 20/1/2010. For the aforesaid reasons, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioners at this stage. The Bail Application is accordingly, dismissed. K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE scm