IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA THURSDAY, THE 29TH JULY 2010 / 7TH SRAVANA 1932 Bail Appl..No. 4186 of 2010() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.304/2010 OF CHIRAYINKEEZH POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM (S): PETITIONER/ACCUSED (IN CUSTODY) --------------------------------------------------- SAJEEV @ BEEDI, AGED 30 YEARS, S/O.SASI, PANAYARAVILAKAM LAKSHAM VEEDU, VALIYA VILA, WARD NO.17, KOONTHALLOOR, CHIRAYINKEEZH, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.LIJU. M.P RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT -------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CHIRAYINKEEZH POLICE STATION, THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.M.S.BREEZ. THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. ---------------------------------------------- Bail Application No.4186 of 2010 ---------------------------------------------- Dated 29th July, 2010. O R D E R This petition is for bail. 2. The alleged offence is under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. According to prosecution, on 13.5.2010 at about 9.45 p.m., petitioner (A1) along with second accused assaulted deceased Vinayan with iron rod and chopper and inflicted injuries on him and he succumbed to the injuries. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that petitioner was taken into custody on 1.6.2010 and he was detained in illegal custody for 15 days. It is only when petitioner's mother filed a petition, he was produced before the court along with remand report. There are serious discrepancies in the case set up by prosecution. The time of occurrence is stated to be 9.45 p.m. but the deceased's brother stated that he had gone to bed at 11 p.m. and also that at that time, deceased was also awake. So, there is inconsistency in the time of offence. 4. Petitioner's counsel also pointed out that the dead body was seen by his brother at 5.30 a.m. and he did not make BA NO. 4186/10 2 any attempt to take his brother to the hospital. It is also pointed out that the deceased and his brother are known criminals and they are involved in various crimes. Petitioner is in custody for the past 45 days. He is not involved in any criminal offence and he has no criminal antecedence. Hence, bail may be granted, it is submitted. 5. This petition is strongly opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that there are statements of various witnesses, which will reveal that the offence was committed by petitioner and another. Petitioner had called two more persons for commission of the offence, but on knowing that he had the intention to attack deceased in this case, they had gone back. The statements of those witnesses are in the case diary. It is also submitted that immediately after the incident, petitioner had gone to the house of a witness, who had also seen him with blood stained clothes. Even though there are no eye witnesses to the incident, there is overwhelming evidence against petitioner, it is submitted. 6. On hearing both sides and on going through the case diary, I do not think it fit to grant bail to petitioner at this BA NO. 4186/10 3 stage. As pointed out by the learned Public Prosecutor, there is explanation in the case diary, with respect to the discrepancy in the time of offence. The witnesses are questioned, relating to the discrepancy and their statements are also recorded. Petition is dismissed. K.HEMA, JUDGE. tgs