Kerala High Court
Gokul vs State Of Kerala on 28 April, 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.M.BABU
FRIDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF APRIL 2017/8TH VAISAKHA, 1939
Bail Appl..No. 2839 of 2017 ()
-------------------------------
CRIME NO. 234/2017 OF HARIPAD POLICE STATION, ALAPPUZHA
PETITIONER(S)/14TH ACCUSED:
--------------------------
GOKUL,
AGED 20 YEARS, S/O. LAKSHMANAN,
PADINJAREATTAM, KARUVATTA NORTH MURI,
KARUVATTA VILLAGE, ALAPPUZHA PIN-690517
BY ADVS.SRI.SHABU SREEDHARAN
SRI.P.R.VIBHU
SMT.NIDHI RAVINDRAN
SRI.M.YOHANNAN
SRI.V.SURESH KUMAR (HARIPAD)
SRI.D.THILAKAN
SRI.K.V.PREMSANKAR
RESPONDENT(S):
--------------
STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM
BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. P.P.SURESH
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 28-04-2017, ALONG WITH BA.2840/2017, THE COURT
ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
SKG
A.M.BABU, J.
---------------------------------------
B.A.Nos.2839 & 2840 of 2017
---------------------------------------
Dated this the 28th day of April, 2017
O R D E R
Petitioners are two of the accused persons in crime no.234/2017 of Haripad police station. Accused Nos.11 and 14 are respectively the petitioner in B.A.No.2840/2017 and the petitioner in B.A.No.2839/2017. They allegedly committed offences under sections 118, 120B, 143, 147, 148, 302, 307, 427 and 449 of IPC read with IPC 34. The petitioners seek bail under section 439 of Cr.P.C.
2. The prosecution case is stated as below:
Pursuant to a criminal conspiracy to do away with the brother of the first informant an unlawful assembly was formed. It executed its object of causing the murder of the target. The assailants attempted to commit the murder of the friend of the victim and caused him injury. It was at 12 noon on 10.02.2017 the incident.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Senior Pubic Prosecutor.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the prosecution has not alleged any overt act against the petitioners. But the alleged roles of the petitioners are not as B.A.Nos.2839 & 2840 of 2017 2 simple as attempted to be simplified. It is alleged that the petitioners on their cell phones were intimating the exact movements of the victim. The present applications are the second set of applications by the petitioners filed in this court. The earlier applications were disposed of on the 3rd day of this month. A learned Judge of this court declined to grant bail stating two reasons. The learned Judge said that having regard to the manner in which the conspiracy was executed, the petitioners could not be released on bail during investigation. It was also said that there was every possibility of the witnesses being threatened by the petitioners. The two grounds on which the earlier applications met dismissal exist even now. The investigation is not completed. For these reasons the petitioners are not entitled to be enlarged on bail at present. Therefore both the applications are liable to be dismissed.
5. Dismissed.
Sd/-
A.M.BABU, JUDGE
sd
// True Copy // P.A.to Judge