IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR WEDNESDAY, THE 25TH MAY 2011 / 4TH JYAISHTA 1933 Bail Appl..No. 3826 of 2011() ----------------------------- CMP.2751/2011 of J.M.F.C.-II,HOSDRUG CRIME NO. 446/2010 OF CHITTARIKAL POLICE STATION .................... PETITIONER/ PETITIONER/3RD ACCUSED:- ------------------------------------------------ BENNY V.DAVID, AGED 45 YEARS, S/O.DAVID, NO.5, MEENAKSHI LAYOUT, KAMASANDRA MAIN ROAD, ELECTRONIC CITY, BANGALORE. BY ADV. SRI.P.V.GEORGE(PUTHIYIDAM) RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:- --------------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, (SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CHITTARIKAL POLICE STATION), REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. ADV. SRI. M.S. BREEZE, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/05/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR, J. .................................................... Bail Application No. 3826 of 2011 ..................................................... Dated this the 25th day of May, 2011. ORDER Petitioner, who is the 3rd accused in Crime No.446 of 2010 of Chittarikal Police Station for an offence punishable under Section 420 r/w Section 34 I.P.C., seeks his enlargement on bail. The petitioner was arrested on 06.05.2011. 2. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application contending inter alia that this is a case of visa cheating in which 52 persons were cheated by promising employment in Australia and the investigation is still in progress. It is too early to accept the petitioner's contention that the amounts were actually received by one P.K. Sunny and he had transferred the amounts to the accounts of the petitioner and Jhomol who had subsequently refunded the amount to Sunny. 3. Having regard to the gravity of the offences, nature of the allegations levelled against the petitioner, the relative conduct of the parties, the extent of the injury sustained, the propensities of the petitioner, 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 petitioner is released on B.A. No. 3826/2011 2 bail, he will definitely influence and intimidate the prosecution witnesses. There is also the likelihood of the petitioner making himself scarce and fleeing from justice. I am, therefore, not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner at this stage. This petition is accordingly dismissed. sd/- V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE. rv //True Copy// P.A to Judge.