Kerala High Court
Sanoj.K.K vs State Of Kerala on 29 March, 2017
Author: K.Abraham Mathew
Bench: K.Abraham Mathew
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.ABRAHAM MATHEW
WEDNESDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF MARCH 2017/8TH CHAITHRA, 1939
Bail Appl..No. 1808 of 2017
-----------------------------
CRIME NO. 526/2016 OF MEENAKSHIPURAM POLICE STATION, PALAKKAD
-----------
PETITIONER:
-----------
SANOJ.K.K,
AGED 30, S/O.KUTTAPPAN,
KOTTALA HOUSE, VILAYODI POST, CHITTUR,
PALGHAT.
BY ADVS.SRI.P.SANJAY
SMT.A.PARVATHI MENON
SRI.SUSEEL M.MENON
RESPONDENT:
----------
STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
THROUGH SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
MEENAKSHIPURAM POLICE STATION.
BY SENIOR PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI C.K.SURESH
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 29-03-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE
FOLLOWING:
K.V.
K.ABRAHAM MATHEW, J.
---------------------------------------
B.A.No.1808 of 2017
---------------------------------------
Dated this the 29th day of March, 2017
O R D E R
Petition filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C.
2. The petitioner is the 10th accused in Crime No.526/2016 of Meenakshipuram Police Station registered for the offences under Sections 143, 144, 148, 148, 307, 341, 324 and 326 read with 149 IPC. He is said to be an RSS worker. The allegation is that pursuant to the conspiracy entered into between him and some of the co-accused the victim, who is a Janatha Dal worker, was assaulted with deadly weapons. The attempt was to cause his death. The victim sustained serious injuries.
3. The learned counsel submits that the petitioner is a bank employee and he is a social worker and there is nothing to prove his nexus with the incident.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.
5. The victim, who is a Janatha Dal party worker, was brutally assaulted allegedly on account of political enmity. B.A.No.1808 2017 2 He sustained very serious injuries, which is not disputed. The allegation against the petitioner is that he was a party to the conspiracy entered into between some of the accused to do away with the victim. I have perused the case diary. The 1st and the 5th accused who were questioned in custody have disclosed the involvement of the petitioner in the conspiracy. Prima facie, I do not find anything to reject this piece of evidence now. Detailed investigation is necessary into the allegation against the petitioner. Granting anticipatory bail to him will frustrate investigation. So, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail.
In the result, the application is dismissed.
Sd/-
K.ABRAHAM MATHEW
JUDGE
sd
// True Copy // P.A.to Judge