IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN MONDAY, THE 15TH MARCH 2010 / 24TH PHALGUNA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 1420 of 2010 CRIME NO.932 OF 2009 OF KOTTAYAM WEST POLICE STATION PETITIONER/9TH ACCUSED: ------------------------------------------- MOPHIN PHILIP, S/O.PHILIP, THIRUVATHUKAL HOUSE, KARAPUZHA KARA, KOTTAYAM VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.C.A.CHACKO RESPONDENT: COMPLAINANT: --------------------------- THE S.I.OF POLICE, KOTTAYAM WEST POLICE STATION, KOTTAYAM, THROUGH THE PUBIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.M.S.BREEZ THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/03/2010, ALONGWITH B.A.NO.1345 OF 2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------ B.A. NOS.1420 & 1345 OF 2010 ------------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 15th day of March, 2010 O R D E R B.A.No.1420 of 2010 is filed by Mophin Philip, who is accused No.9 in Crime No.932 of 2009 of Kottayam West Police Station, under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Mophin Philip was arrested on 14.2.2010. 2. B.A.No.1345 of 2010 is filed by Mathew K.George @ Manoj, who is accused No.8, for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, in Crime No.932 of 2009 of Kottayam West Police Station. 3. The offences alleged against the accused are under Sections 143, 144, 147, 148, 326, 120B and 307 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. 4. The gist of the prosecution case is the following: On 11.12.2009, the injured (Denim) and his friend (Anand Mohan) went for a second show. After the show, they went to a cool drinks shop. B.A. NOS.1420 & 1345 OF 2010 :: 2 :: The first accused Jins and accused No.9 Mophin Philip were also there in the shop. Accused No.9 gave instructions to some other persons over telephone. Denim and Anand Mohan returned from the shop on a bike. Denim dropped Anand Mohan at his residence. While coming back, the bike of Denim was intercepted by putting across the road a Santro car. The first accused came out of the car and attacked Denim with a sword. He sustained serious injury on his right hand. Again he was attacked by four other accused who came in the car with sword stick, sickle and other weapons. Denim lost his right index finger due to the attack. At that time, accused No.8 came in an Alto car. He shouted to kill Denim. At that time, the other accused again attacked Denim. He sustained other injuries as well. The accused persons escaped from the scene. The police came to the spot. Denim was removed to the hospital. He underwent a surgery. The First Information Statement was given by the brother of the victim while the victim was in the operation theatre. 5. Accused No.9, Mophin Philip, was arrested on 14.2.2010 and he was remanded to judicial custody. He moved an application for bail, which was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Kottayam as per the order dated 24.2.2010. B.A. NOS.1420 & 1345 OF 2010 :: 3 :: 6. The learned Public Prosecutor very vehemently opposed the Bail Applications. He submitted that Denim sustained very serious injuries. Denim had completed the course in Hotel Management. He is a youngster, aged 23 years. It is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that accused Nos.4,5,7 and 8 are yet to be arrested. If bail is granted to the petitioners, it would adversely affect the proper investigation of the case. 7. The learned counsel appearing for accused No.9 Mophin Philip submitted that continued detention of accused No.9 is not required in the case. He also submitted that accused No.9 is prepared to comply with any condition that may be imposed by the Court. 8. The learned counsel for accused No.8, Mathew K.George @ Manoj, submitted that there is no material to connect accused No.8 with the offence. The counsel relied on a remand report filed in the case when another accused was sought to be remanded. He stated that in the remand report, it is stated that accused No.8 came on a scooter, whereas the case B.A. NOS.1420 & 1345 OF 2010 :: 4 :: put forward by the prosecution now is that accused No.8 came in an Alto car. 9. I have perused the case diary. I am not inclined to accept the contention raised by the learned counsel for accused No.8 that there are no materials to connect accused No.8 with the offence. When the case diary shows that there are materials to connect a particular accused with the offence, absence of some of the relevant details in a remand report when another accused was sought to be remanded, cannot be taken advantage of by some other accused who is not arrested at all (the former), in support of his application for anticipatory bail. On a perusal of the case diary, prima facie, I am convinced that there are materials to connect accused No.8. 10. In so far as accused No.9 is concerned, I am of the view that he cannot be released on bail at this stage. The investigation is not complete. Accused Nos.4,5,7 and 8 are yet to be arrested. If accused No.9 is released on bail at this stage, it is likely that he may try to influence the prosecution witnesses or intimidate them. If he is released on bail, as rightly pointed out by the learned Public Prosecutor, the investigating officer may find it difficult to secure B.A. NOS.1420 & 1345 OF 2010 :: 5 :: arrest of the other accused. Therefore, I am not inclined to grant bail to accused No.9 at this stage. 11. In so far as accused No.8 is concerned, I am of the view that he is not entitled to the discretionary relief under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. As stated earlier, there are enough materials, prima facie, to come to the conclusion that accused No.8 is also involved in the offence. The offence alleged against accused No.8 is serious in nature. The victim had sustained very severe injuries. He had to undergo an operation. For the aforesaid reasons, I am of the view that the Bail Applications are liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, I dismiss both the Bail Applications. (K.T.SANKARAN) Judge ahz/