IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Bail Appl..No. 1850 of 2009()
1. SANHTHOSH MADHAVAN,4B, FLAT ROYAL
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.B.RAMAN PILLAI
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.RAMKUMAR
Dated :08/04/2009
O R D E R
V. RAMKUMAR, J.
=====================
B.A. No. 1850 of 2009
=====================
Dated, this the 8th day of April, 2009.
ORDER
Petitioner who is the 1st accused in Crime No.441 of 2008
of Kadavanthara Police Station for offences punishable under
Sections 366(A), 376, 366 and 342 IPC r/w Section 34 IPC
seeks his enlargement on bail. The petitioner was arrested on
13.05.2008.
2. The application was opposed on behalf of the
prosecution.
3. Having regard to the nature of the allegations levelled
against the petitioner, the relative conduct of the parties, the
nature of the legal injury sustained and the other facts and
circumstances of the case, if the petitioner is released on bail,
he will definitely influence and intimidate the prosecution
witnesses. There is also the likelihood of the petitioner
making himself scarce and fleeing from justice.
4. It is true that the petitioner has been in custody from
13.05.2008 onwards. But then, his earlier bail applications
were dismissed with observations to the effect that the
petitioner will have to stand trial as an undertrial prisoner. It
B.A. No. 1850/2009 : 2 :
is also true that the petitioner may have to adduce defence
evidence while in custody. But then, as rightly pointed out by
the Director General of Prosecution, even while the petitioner
has been in custody, there were complaints from the witnesses
that they were intimidated. If so, by releasing the petitioner
at this stage of the trial, he can do more havoc. In the light of
the decision reported in RAJESH RANJAN YADAV @ PAPPU
YADAV v. CBI through ITS DIRECTOR (AIR 2007 SC 451),
I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner who will have
to stand trial as an undertrial prisoner until the Sessions Cases
against him are disposed of and subject to the nature of their
disposal.
5. Having regard to the fact that the petitioner is in
custody, the trial Judge concerned shall give him sufficient
time for adducing defence evidence in case any request is
made in that behalf. With this liberty, this petition is
dismissed.
This petition is accordingly dismissed.
Dated this the 8th day of April, 2009.
V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE.
B.A. No. 1850/2009 : 3 :
rv