IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR MONDAY, THE 19TH DECEMBER 2011 / 28TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 Bail Appl.No. 10396 of 2011() ------------------------------------- (CRIME NO.1537 OF 2011 OF KARUNAGAPALLY POLICE STATION, KOLLAM DISTRICT) PETITIONERS/ ACCUSED 2 AND 5: ------------------------------------------------- 1. KIRAN SETHU, S/O.SETHUKUMAR, S.A.BHAVANAM, ADINADU VADAKKE MURI, ADINADU VILLAGE, KOLLAM-690 542. 2. ARUNKUMAR, S/O.UTHAMAN, UNNI BHAVANAM, ADINADU VADAKKE MURI, ADINADU VILLAGE, KOLLAM-690 542. BY ADVS. SRI.P.B.SAHASRANAMAN SRI.T.S.HARIKUMAR SRI.K.JAGADEESH RESPONDENTS/ STATE & THE INVESTIGATING OFFICER --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682 035. 2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, KARUNAGAPPALLY, KOLLAM-690 518. R1 TO R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTORSMT.R.REMA THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/12/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: RKM V. RAMKUMAR, J. .................................................... Bail Application No.10396 of 2011 ..................................................... Dated this the 19th day of December, 2011 ORDER Petitioners, who are accused Nos.1 and 2 in Crime No.1537/2011 of Karunagappally Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 120(B), 324,326 and 308 read with 34 IPC, seek their enlargement on bail. The occurrence took place on 17.06.2011. The petitioners were arrested on 1.12.2011 and 2.12.2011 respectively. 2. The application was opposed on behalf of the prosecution. 3. Having regard to the gravity of the offences, nature of the allegations levelled against the petitioners, the relative conduct of the parties, the extent of the injury sustained, the propensities of the petitioners, the sentiments of the near relatives of the victim and the other facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that if the petitioners are released on bail, they will definitely influence and intimidate the prosecution witnesses. There is also the likelihood of the petitioners making themselves scarce and fleeing from justice. I am, therefore, not inclined to grant bail to the petitioners at this stage. This petition is accordingly dismissed. V. RAMKUMAR, (JUDGE) sj