IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN WEDNESDAY, THE 30TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 9TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 Bail Appl..No. 9644 of 2011() ----------------------------- CMP.4993/2011 of J.M.F.C.-I,KOYILANDY CRIME NO.1025/2010 OF KOYILANDY POLICE STATION ' .................... PETITIONER: -------------------- 1.BABY, 33/11, S/O.KUNHIRAMAN, CHEMBIL HOUSE, VIYYUR AMSOM DESOM, KOYILANDY. 2. SUDHEESH, 23/11, S/O.DASAN, KEERAKAI HOUSE, KOLLAM, VIYYUR, KOYILANDY BY ADV. SRI.P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KOYILANDY POLICE STATION KOYILANDY-673 305 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP: BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM BY P.P.SRI.R.RANJITH THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. --------------------------------- B.A.No.9644 OF 2011 --------------------------------- Dated this the 30th day of November, 2011 ORDER This is an application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioners are accused Nos.4 and 7 in Crime No.1025 of 2010 of Koyilandy Police Station. 2.The offences alleged against the petitioners are under Sections 143, 147, 148, 452, 324, 326, 307, 506(ii) and 294(b) read with 149 of the Indian Penal Code. 3.The prosecution case is that on 13.12.2010 at 1 A.M, the accused persons formed themselves into an unlawful assembly, armed with deadly weapons, and criminally trespassed into the house of the de facto complainant by breaking open the door and attacked the de facto complainant and his mother. The de facto complainant was beaten with iron rod . When his mother tried to prevent the accused from B.A.No. 9644 OF 2011 2 attacking de facto complainant, injuries were inflicted on her by a sword. Later, the de facto complainant was pulled out of the house and he was beaten with iron bars and cut injuries were inflicted with sword. The allegation is that the intention of the accused was to kill the de facto complainant. The de facto complainant sustained very serious injuries. 4. Accused No.4 was arrested on 5.11.2011 and accused No.7 was arrested on 8.11.2011. 5. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the occurrence took place as a result of political rivalry. He also submitted that after the incident, the petitioners were absconding and therefore, they could not be arrested. The investigation is not completed. If the petitioners are released on bail at this stage, there is every likelihood of the witnesses being terrorized, influenced and intimidated by the petitioners. 6. The submissions made by the learned Public Prosecutor cannot be brushed aside as irrelevant. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not think it just and proper B.A.No. 9644 OF 2011 3 to release the petitioners on bail at this stage. If they are released on bail, there is every likelihood of the witnesses being harassed and humiliated and evidence tampered with. It is also likely that the petitioners may make themselves scarce. For the aforesaid reasons, the Bail Application is dismissed. K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE cms