IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA TUESDAY, THE 25TH MAY 2010 / 4TH JYAISHTA 1932 Bail Appl..No. 2864 of 2010() ----------------------------- (CRIME NO.71/2010 OF THAMPANOOR POLICE STATION) .................... PETITIONER/3RD ACCUSED ------------------------------------------ CYRIL CHRIST RAJ, S/O. M.SABARI MUTHU, 195, VATTAKKARAL, NAGERCOIL-4. BY ADV. SRI.K.M.SATHYANATHA MENON RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENT AS STATE ---------------------------------- 1. THE DY.S.P. CBCID, HHW-1, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, COCHIN-682 031. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.M.S.BREEZ THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. ------------------------------- B.A.NO. 2864 OF 2010 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 25th day of May, 2010. ORDER This petition for Anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offence under Sections 304, and 308 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. According to prosecution, a building was being renovated and during the process of re- construction, a portion of the building fell down and five workers died at the spot and six others got injured. A crime was registered against owner of the building, the contractor, the supervisors, etc. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that 1st accused was granted anticipatory bail. The 2nd accused was released on bail. The 4th and 5th accused who are the supervisors were also granted anticipatory bail. Therefore, the petitioner being a contractor, who is working in Tamilnadu may be granted anticipatory bail, it is submitted. The work was being carried out under instructions from supervisors and the petitioner has no direct involvement in reconstruction, it is submitted. 4. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that all other accused are on bail and the supervisor, owners etc. were granted anticipatory bail also. B.A.NO. 2864 OF 2010 2 5. On hearing both sides, considering the serious nature of the allegations made, I do not find it fit to grant anticipatory bail to petitioner. While considering the role of the owners, supervisors etc., I find that the roIe of contractor is different. So, granting of anticipatory bail to the others does not perused me to grant anticipatory bail to petitioner. This petition is dismissed. K.HEMA,JUDGE. pm