IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN TUESDAY, THE 23RD MARCH 2010 / 2ND CHAITHRA 1932 Bail Appl..No. 1506 of 2010() ----------------------------- SC.210/2010 of ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT (FAST TRACK-I), TRIVANDRUM .................... PETITIONER/ACCUSED: --------------------------------------- AMEER, S/O.FAZALUDEEN, PALLIVILAKAM VEEDU, ARIVALAM, RATHICAL DESOM, VETTUR VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.P.K.MUHAMMED SRI.M.ABDUL RASHEED RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT: --------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.M.S.BREEZ THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. --------------------------------------------- B.A.No.1506 of 2010 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 23rd day of March, 2010 O R D E R This is an application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner is the accused in Sessions Case No.210 of 2010 on the file of the court of the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court-I), Thiruvananthapuram. 2. The prosecution case is that on 29.1.2004, at about 8.45 P.M., the accused with an intention to kill one Mohammed Rafi attacked him with sword stick, caused injuries on various parts of his body and murdered him. After committing murder, his right leg below the knee and right hand below the elbow were removed and those portions of his body were thrown in a canal. It is also alleged that the accused gave cut injuries to CW1 who interfered, while Mohammed Rafi was being assaulted. 3. The petitioner was granted bail. He absconded. Later, he was arrested on 4.2.2010. The petitioner moved for bail before the learned Sessions Judge. That application was dismissed by the order dated 22nd February, 2010. The learned Sessions Judge held thus: BA No.1506/2010 2 “4. It is seen that earlier, before the case was entered in the L.P. Case Register, M.C.No.36/2008 was taken suomotu by this court under Section 446 Crl.P.C. as the accused failed to appear in court in spite of the bail bond executed on 20.2.2007 by him and his sureties. Notices were issued in M.C.36/2008 to the present accused and the then sureties making them as CPs 1 to 3 therein. Those sureties failed to produce the accused and did not show any reason for the non-production of the accused. So my learned predecessor in office pronounced the order in M.C.36/2008 that the accused and the sureties (C.Ps 1 to 3) shall deposit the bond amount of Rs.15,000/- each in court as penalty under Section 446 Crl.P.C. But that amount is still remaining unrealised from any of the counter petitioners therein. 5. It is while so the accused now moves this bail applications. The allegation against the accused is that he did a gruesome murder of a person. The date of offence is 29.1.2004. He has successfully evaded the trial of the case by going absconded. Such delay caused at the behest of the accused in the trial of the case would prejudicially affect the prosecution in adducing the evidence in the case. If the accused who is now arrested and produced again jumps bail, the trial of the case may go prolonged indefinitely to BA No.1506/2010 3 the disadvantage of the prosecution and witnesses whose memory may gets faded and faded by such lapse of time. There is a report that the accused had gone for gulf country in the past while his case was pending. Now upon getting the accused apprehended this case is ripe to go for trial.” 4. The case is ripe for trial. On a query, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that two witnesses were examined. If the petitioner is released on bail at this stage, there is every likelihood of the petitioner making himself scarce, thereby paralysing the trial of the case. I am in agreement with the view taken by the learned Sessions Judge on this point. The trial of the case is going on, going by the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. It is only proper that the petitioner is made available for trial, which can be ensured only by denying bail to him. I do so. For the aforesaid reasons, the Bail Application is dismissed. The learned Sessions Judge will make every endeavour to dispose of the case at the earliest. K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE csl