Kerala High Court
Ajith @ Unnikrishnan vs The Station House Officer on 3 July, 2009
Author: K.T.Sankaran
Bench: K.T.Sankaran
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Bail Appl..No. 3595 of 2009()
1. AJITH @ UNNIKRISHNAN,
... Petitioner
2. SIJITH @ SIJAPPAN,
3. ANEESH, S/O.VELAYUDHAN,
Vs
1. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.T.C.SURESH MENON
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.T.SANKARAN
Dated :03/07/2009
O R D E R
K.T.SANKARAN, J.
------------------------------
B.A.No.3595 of 2009
-------------------------------
Dated this the 3rd day of July, 2009
ORDER
This is an application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Petitioners are the accused Nos.1 to 3 in Crime No.369 of 2009 of Kodungallur Police Station.
2. The offences alleged against the petitioners are under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 324, 326 and 307 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. The incident was on 17.4.2009. The petitioners were arrested on 20.4.2009 and they are in judicial custody. The petitioners moved a Bail Application before the learned Sessions Judge which was dismissed by the order dated 18th June 2009. Paragraph Nos.4 to 6 of the said order reads as follows:
"The following criminal antecedents have been reported against the petitioners. A1 is an accused in 1) Crime No.110/2007 of the Kodungallur Police Station for the offences under Sections 323 and 308 IPC read with Section 34 IPC, 2) Crime No.1131/2007 of the said police station under Section 153(A) IPC, 3) Crime No.914/2007 of the said police station under Section 295 IPC, 4) Crime No.157/2008 of the said police station under Section 107 Crl.P.C., 5) Crime No.198/2008 of the said police station under Sections 341, 323 and 308 IPC read with Section 34 IPC, 6) Crime No.257/2008 of the BA No.3595/2009 2 said police station under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 323, 332, 353 and 308 IPC, 7) Crime No.288/2008 of the said police station under Sections 324 and 308 IPC and 8) crime No.291/2009 of the said police station under Section 110(e) Crl.P.C.
5. The 2nd accused is an accused in 1) crime No.825/2007 of the Kodungallur police station for the offences under Section 324 IPC, 2) Cime No.924/2007 for the offence under Section 107 Crl.P.C., 3) Crime No.1107/2007 of the said police station under Sections 341, 323 and 324 IPC read with Section 34 IPC, 4) Crime No.198/2008 under Sections 341, 323 and 308 IPC read with Section 34 IPC, 5) Crime No.110/07 of the said police station under Section 506(i) read with Section 34 IPC, 6) Crime No.257/2008 of the said police station under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 323, 332, 353 and 308 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act and 7) Crime No.564/2008 under Sections 294(b) and 506(i) read with Section 34 IPC.
6. The 3rd accused is an accused in Crime No.560/2002, 561/2002, 563/2002, 564/2002 and 565/2002 of the Mathilakam police station for the offences of unlawful assembly rioting armed with deadly weapons etc., 6) Crime No.693/2002 of the Kodungallur police station for the offences under Sections 143, 147, 341 and 323 IPC read with Section 149 IPC, 7) Crime No.108/2003 of the said police station for the offences under Sections 143, 147, 148, 353 and 225 IPC read with Section 149 IPC, 8) Crime No.524/2005 of the said police station under Section 279 IPC, 9) Crime No.727/2005 of the said police station under Sections 341, 323, 324 and 308 IPC read with Section 34 IPC, 10) Crime No.78/2006 of the said police station under Sections 341, 324 and 307 IPC 11) Crime No.145/2007 of the said police station under Sections 341, 323 and 506(i) IPC read with Section 34 IPC, 12) Crime No.281/2007 of the said police station under Sections 448 and 427 IPC, 13) Crime No.856/2007 of the said police station under Sections 341, 324 and 427 IPC read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and 14) Crime No.1033/2007 under Sections 143, 147 427 and 353 IPC read with Section 149 IPC."
4. Learned public prosecutor submitted that the petitioners BA No.3595/2009 3 are involved in the several cases mentioned in the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge and if they are released on bail, it is most likely that the petitioners may indulge in similar activities in the area resulting in danger to the peaceful life of the people of the locality. It is also likely that they may try to tamper with the evidence and influence or intimidate the witnesses.
5. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature and gravity of the offence, the injury sustained and the fact that all the petitioners are involved in several other cases, I do not think that the petitioners are entitled to be released on bail at this stage.
The Bail Application is accordingly dismissed.
K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE csl