IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR MONDAY, THE 11TH OCTOBER 2010 / 19TH ASWINA 1932 Bail Appl..No. 6300 of 2010() ----------------------------- CMP.5207/2010 of J.M.F.C.-II,ATTINGAL .................... (CRIME NO.683/2010 OF KAZHAKUTTOM POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT) ......... PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.1 & 2: ------------------------------------------------ 1. AJEESH @ IKRU, S/O.SURESH KUMAR, HOUSE NO.17B, POLICE QUARTERS, ASRAMAM, KOLLAM. 2. EBIN PEREIRA @ MANGAL PANDE @ PODIKUTTAN, S/O.IRWIN PEREIRA, PERUMBATHUKODI, THEKKATHU VEEDU, MUNDAKKAL VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.C.RAJENDRAN RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT: ---------------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KAZHAKUTTOM POLICE STATION, THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. M.S. BREEZ THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss V. RAMKUMAR, J. .................................................... Bail Application No. 6300 of 2010 ..................................................... Dated: 11-10-2010 ORDER Petitioners who are accused Nos. 1 and 2 in Crime No. 683 of 2010 of Kazhakuttom Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram District for offences punishable under Sections 279, 109 read with Sec. 34 and 119(1) of M.V. Act and Sec. 27 of the Arms Act, seek their enlargement on bail. Date of occurrence was on 25-09-2010. They were arrested on the same day. 2. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application contending inter alia that the first accused is involved in five other cases and the second accused is involved in nine other cases and they are habitual offenders entering into quotation for committing crimes. Both of them did not stop the vehicle when required to do so by the police and they were intercepted Bail Application No. 6300 of 2010 -:2:- to find that A1 was having a sword concealed on his person. 3. Having regard to the nature of the allegations levelled against the petitioner, the relative conduct of the parties, the antecedents of the petitioners and the potential threat posed by them and the other facts and circumstances of the case, if the petitioners are released on bail, they will definitely influence and intimidate the prosecution witnesses. There is also the likelihood of the petitioners making themselves scarce and fleeing from justice. I am, therefore, not inclined to grant bail to the petitioners at this stage. This petition is accordingly dismissed. Dated this the 11th day of October, 2010. V. RAMKUMAR, (JUDGE) ani.