High Court Kerala High Court

Biju vs The State Of Kerala on 16 October, 2006

Kerala High Court
Biju vs The State Of Kerala on 16 October, 2006
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Bail Appl No. 6093 of 2006()


1. BIJU, S/O.ARJUNAN, AJUBHAVANIL,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. THE STATE OF KERALA,
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.T.A.SHAJI

                For Respondent  :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

The Hon'ble MR. Justice J.M.JAMES

 Dated :16/10/2006

 O R D E R
                           J.M.JAMES, J.

                              --------------

                          B.A. 6093/2006

                            ------------------

   DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2006




                             O R D E R

The petitioner, the seventh accused, in crime

No.579/2006 of Kottiyam Police Station, is before this

Court under Section 439 Cr.P.C., as he is in judicial

custody from 25.9.2006, for the offence punishable under

Sections 143, 147, 148, 450, 324, 326, 307, 427, 341, 506

(ii) and 120B IPC read with Section 149 IPC.

2. I heard the elaborate arguments advanced by

the learned counsel for the petitioner. It is submitted that

accused Nos. 2 and 3 had already been granted bail. The

learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the Investigating

Officer had appeared before him, to take steps to cancel

the bail, granted to those accused. It is also further

submitted by the prosecution that the occurrence took

place, because of the rivalry between the two factions of

the locality and if the petitioner is released on bail at this

stage, it would affect the law and order situation of the

B.A.6093/2006

2

area. Further submission is that there is an application

posted to 25th and this matter may also be posted on the

same day.

3. But the counsel for the petitioner submitted

that because of the granting of bail to accused Nos. 2

and 3 and the pendency of this matter, it would be

against the natural justice and that the seventh accused

is in jail from 25.9.2006.

4. After hearing both sides, I am of the opinion

that granting of the bail to the petitioner would be

against the interest of the prosecution, particularly when

the learned Public Prosecutor submits that the

prosecution is taking steps to cancel the bail, granted to

accused Nos. 2 and 3.

In such circumstances, the prayer under

Section 439 Cr.P.C., is dismissed.

J.M.JAMES

JUDGE

mrcs