High Court Kerala High Court

Jineesh @ Jinnappi vs State Of Kerala on 9 December, 2010

Kerala High Court
Jineesh @ Jinnappi vs State Of Kerala on 9 December, 2010
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Bail Appl..No. 7847 of 2010()


1. JINEESH @ JINNAPPI, AGED 32,
                      ...  Petitioner
2. RAJU, AGED 32, S/O.VELAYUDHAN,

                        Vs



1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.RAJIT

                For Respondent  :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.RAMKUMAR

 Dated :09/12/2010

 O R D E R
                         V.RAMKUMAR, J.
          -----------------------------------------------------
              Bail Application No.7847 of 2010
          ------------------------------------------------------
        Dated this the 09th day of December, 2010

                                ORDER

The petitioners, who are accused Nos.2 & 3 in Crime

No.698 of 2010 of Vadakkekad Police Station for an offence

punishable under Section 399 I.P.C., seek their enlargement

on bail. The occurrence took place on 28/10/2010. The

petitioners were arrested on 28/10/2010.

2. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the

application contending inter alia that the second accused is

involved in eight other cases including a murder case and the

third accused is involved in six other crimes including two

murder cases and that they were found in a Tavera Car within

the limits of Vadakkekad Police Station armed with deadly

weapons like daggers, iron rods, etc.

3. Having regard to the gravity of the offence, nature

of the allegations levelled against the petitioners, the relative

conduct of the parties, the extent of the injury sustained, the

propensities of the petitioners, the sentiments of the near

relatives of the victim and the other facts and circumstances

of the case, I am of the view that if the petitioners are

Bail Appln.No.7847/2010
: 2 :

released on bail, they will definitely influence and intimidate

the prosecution witnesses. There is also the likelihood of the

petitioners making themselves scarce and fleeing from justice.

I am, therefore, not inclined to grant bail to the petitioners at

this stage.

This petition is accordingly dismissed.

V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE
skj