M.T.Thankachan vs State Of Kerala on 4 November, 2019
15. The investigation has a definite apprehension that,
accused nos.1 and 4 are likely to influence the witnesses.
However, they have no case that, either during the course of
investigation or after the dismissal of the earlier bail applications,
any of the above accused has influenced or attempted to influence
any of the witnesses. Hence the contention regarding the
possibility of influencing the witnesses remain within the domain
of an apprehension. Prosecution has another apprehension that
accused may tamper the evidence. Honourable Supreme Court in
P.Chidambaram v. Central Bureau of Investigation
(Crl.Appeal.No.1603 of 2019) and Delhi High Court in
D.K.SHivakumar v. Directorate of Enforcement
(B.A.No.2484 of 2019) have considered the bail applications in
the light of the above objection regarding tampering with
evidence. Supreme Court held that since the documents are in the
custody of the prosecuting agency, there was no chance of
appellant tampering with the evidence. It was also held that in
both the above cases, the "flight risk" can also be taken care of by
imposing adequate conditions. Definitely, in this case, prosecution
has no case that accused are likely to flee from justice.