IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN TUESDAY, THE 20TH APRIL 2010 / 30TH CHAITHRA 1932 Bail Appl..No. 2385 of 2010() ------------------------------------------- CMP.NO.2318/2010 OF JFMC - I, VARKALA ......... (CRIME NO.303 OF 2010 OF THE VARAKALA POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM) ....... PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 3 AND 5: ---------------------------------------------------- 1. DEVAN, SON OF MOHANAN, DEVI BHAVAN, KALLIDANTI, MOOKKANMUKKU, PANAYARA, CHEMMARUTHI, VARKALA. 2. SAJEEV. SON OF SASI, ALUVILA VEEDU, CHEMMARUTHI, VARKALA. BY ADVS. SRI.S.M.PREM, SMT.K.P.SANTHI, SRI.P.K.NIJOY, SMT.NISHA G.THARAMAL, SRI.NIYAS A.SALAM. RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT: --------------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. P.A. SALIM THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/04/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss V.K. MOHANAN, J. ---------------------------------------- Bail Application No. 2385 of 2010 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 20th day of April, 2010 O R D E R This is an application for regular bail filed by the petitioners, who are accused in Crime No. 303/2010 of Varkala Police Station, in which offences punishable under Sections 120 B and 34 of I.P.C., r/w Section 3 of the Explosive Substances Act are involved. 2. The allegation against the petitioners is that, the accused Nos.2 to 8 had conspired together and threw a cracker to the house of the defacto complainant. The defacto complainant saw the remnants of the cracker only next day and accordingly, the defacto complainant made the complaint. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and also the learned Public Prosecutor. 5. The petitioners were arrested only on 2.4.2010. The investigation in this case is in progress. Considering B.A.No.2385 of 2010 -:2:- the nature of the offences involved in the case, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioners at this stage, especially since the release of the petitioners at this stage is likely to affect the investigation adversely and there is no guarantee that they will not influence the witnesses and interfere with the investigation. In the result, there is no merit in the petition for bail and accordingly, the same is dismissed. V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE ami/