IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN MONDAY, THE 11TH JANUARY 2010 / 21TH POUSHA 1931 Bail Appl.. No. 7878 of 2009() ---------------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN BA.7195/2009 Dated 08/12/2009 CRIME NO.1242/2009 OF PANANGAD POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM. .................... PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.5: ---------------------------------------------- RAMSHAD, S/O. KAMARUDEEN, AGED 28 YEARS, CHALIYANGAD HOUSE, PALLURUTHY, RAMESWARAM VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.S.NIRMAL KUMAR RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT: ------------------------------------------------ STATE, REPRESENTED BY S.I OF POLICE, PANANGAD POLICE STATION, (CRIME NO. 1242/2009) REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM. SRI. AMJAD ALI, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T. SANKARAN, J. --------------------------- B.A. No. 7878 of 2009 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 11th day of January, 2010 O R D E R The petitioner had filed B.A. No.7195/2009, which was dismissed as per the order dated 8/12/2009. For the sake of convenience, the order dated 8/12/2009 is extracted below: “This is an application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner is accused No.5 in Crime No.1242 of 2009 of Panangad Police Station. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioner and the other accused are under Sections 143, 147, 148, 450, 307 and 120B read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act. 3. The date of occurrence was on 21.10.2009. The petitioner was arrested on 1.11.2009. 4. One Jamaludheen, his wife and son sustained injuries on 21.10.2009 at 3.30 AM as a result of the alleged attack made by the accused persons in the case using dangerous weapons like sword stick and B.A. No. 7878/ 2009 2 iron rods. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that Jamaludheen sustained 36 cut injuries, his wife sustained 3 cut injuries and Jamaludheen's son sustained 8 cut injuries. 5. The prosecution case is that the crime was committed as instructed by one Bhai Nazir, who is the sixth accused in the case. At the relevant time, Bhai Nazir was in judicial custody. It is stated that Bhai Nazir is a notorious criminal and that he is capable of conducting operations of criminal activities with the help of his associates even while he remains in jail. According to the learned Public Prosecutor, the incident in the present case was such an incident where Bhai Nazir orchestrated the incident with the help of the other accused persons. The investigation of the case is not over. If the petitioner is released on bail at this stage, it is likely that he would involve in other criminal activities and that he would intimidate or influence the witnesses. The injuries sustained by Jamaludheen and his family members B.A. No. 7878/ 2009 3 would show the nature of the crime and the manner in which it was committed. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner at this stage. The Bail Application is accordingly dismissed. ” 2. The investigation is not over. There is not much change in the circumstances after the order dated 8/12/2009, except that the investigation has progressed to some extent. It is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that the petitioner is the accused in another case, namely, C.C.No. 3036/2001 on the file of the Court of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ernakulam. 3. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature and gravity of the offence and the allegations levelled against the petitioner, I do not think that the petitioner is entitled to be released on bail at this stage. The Bail Application is accordingly dismissed. K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE scm