IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN WEDNESDAY, THE 7TH SEPTEMBER 2011 / 16TH BHADRA 1933 Bail Appl..No. 7396 of 2011() ----------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN BA.6494/2011 Dated 16/08/2011 CRMP.2299/2011 of D.C. & SESSIONS COURT,KOLLAM CRIME NO.227/2011 OF ANCHAL POLICE STATION KOLLAM DISTRICT .................... PETITIONER : 6TH ACCUSED ------------------------------- SURESH,AGED 22 YEARS,S/O.THULASEEDHARAN PILLAI,SURESH BHAVAN,MANALIL MURI,AYIRANALOOR VILLAGE,KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.J.JAYAKUMAR RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT -------------------------- STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,ANCHAL POLICE STATION KOLLAM DISTRICT THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM. ADDITIONAL R2:- REJITH KUMAR, S/O.SODARAN, SREE KRISHNA NILAYAM, THAZHAMELMURI, ANCHAL VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT. (Additional R2 impleaded as per order dated 07/09/2011 in Crl.M.Appln.No.6089/2011) ADV. SRI.ANCHAL C.VIJAYAN FOR ADDL.R2 PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.V.MANU THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07/09/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. --------------------------------------------- Bail Appln.No.7396 of 2011 ---------------------------------------------- Dated this the 07th day of September, 2011 ORDER This is an application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner is accused No.6 in Crime No.227 of 2011 of Anchal Police Station, Kollam District. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 120-B, 307 and 447 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The date of occurrence was on 03/03/2011. The petitioner was arrested on 01/08/2011 and he is in judicial custody since then. 4. The prosecution case reveals the following:- On 03/03/2011 at about 2.30 P.M. accused Nos.1 to 4 trespassed into the house of the de facto complainant (Rejith Kumar) and attempted to kill him. The de facto complainant was attacked with chopper and iron rods. He sustained serious injuries. In the course of the incident accused No.1 sustained injuries and he succumbed to the injuries. A crime was registered against Rejith Kumar, for the Bail Appln.No.7396/2011 : 2 : murder of first accused in the present case. Rejith Kumar was arrested and he was detained in jail for about fifty days. The investigation reveals that accused Nos.1 to 4 committed the offence and they were engaged by accused Nos.5 to 7 for committing the crime. It is alleged that accused Nos.1 to 4 are members of a criminal gang. Accused No.5 claims to be the second wife of the aged father of Rejith Kumar. The mother of Rejith Kumar passed away and accused No.5 claims that she was married by the father of Rejith Kumar within a few months. It is alleged that accused Nos.6 and 7 are close associates of accused No.5. Accused No.6 is also the driver employed by the father of the de facto complainant. Investigation reveals that accused No.5 put forward certain claims to the residential house and the property in the possession of the de facto complainant. A property dispute is pending between the de facto complainant and accused No.5. According to the de facto complainant, accused No.5 has no right in any of the properties and her attempt is to some how or other get at the properties which belong to the father and which belonged to the mother of the de facto complainant. 5. Apart from the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor, I also heard the learned Bail Appln.No.7396/2011 : 3 : counsel appearing for the de facto complainant. Advocate Sri. Anchal C.Vijayan, the learned counsel for the de facto complainant submitted that accused No.5 has made a threat that the de facto complainant would be done away with and a crime was registered against accused No.5 in the present case on account of such threat. 6. The allegations levelled against the petitioner are grave in nature. The de facto complainant happened to become an accused in a case where the offence alleged is under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. In the peculiar circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner at this stage. Accused No.7 is not arrested so far. Investigation is not over. If the petitioner is released on bail at this stage, he would indulge in intimidating and influencing the witnesses and tampering with the evidence. It is also likely that the petitioner would harass the de facto complainant. For the aforesaid reasons, the Bail Application is dismissed. K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE skj