High Court Kerala High Court

Shafi vs State Of Kerala on 18 November, 2009

Kerala High Court
Shafi vs State Of Kerala on 18 November, 2009
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Bail Appl..No. 6753 of 2009()


1. SHAFI, AGED 21 YEARS,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. STATE OF KERALA,R EP. BY PUBLIC
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.M.L.SURESH KUMAR

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.T.SANKARAN

 Dated :18/11/2009

 O R D E R
                        K.T.SANKARAN, J.
                  ---------------------------------------------
                         B.A.No.6753 of 2009
                  ---------------------------------------------
           Dated this the 18th day of November, 2009


                               ORDER

This is an application for bail under Section 439 of the

Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner is accused No.6 in

Crime No.567 of 2009 of Kilikolloor Police Station, Kollam

District.

2. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under

Sections 143, 147, 148, 294(b), 452, 437 and 308 read with

Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms

Act.

3. The prosecution case is that on 28.10.2009, at about

1 A.M., the accused persons forcibly entered into the house of

the de facto complainant after breaking open the door of the

house and caused injuries on the de facto complainant with a

sword. He was also beaten up with iron rods. His wife was also

attacked. They sustained injuries. The wound certificate would

disclose the following injuries on the de facto complainant.

(i) “An incised wound of 3x2x1 cm. on (R) side of

face below (R) eye;

(ii) An incised wound of 10x3x1 cm. on the (R) side

of scalp – sutured;

BA No.6753/2009 2

(iii) An incised wound of 4x2x1 cm. on the back of

scalp-sutured.”

4. In the FI statement, the de facto complainant has

stated that the accused committed the offence on account of the

fact that the son of the de facto complainant gave some

information to the police about the illegal activities of the

accused persons. The investigation is not over. It is submitted

by the learned Public Prosecutor that if the petitioner is released

on bail at this stage, it would adversely affect the proper

investigation of the case. It is most likely that the petitioner may

tamper with the evidence or try to influence or intimidate the

witnesses.

5. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the

case, I find force in the submission made by the learned Public

Prosecutor. I do not think it proper to release the petitioner on

bail at this stage, particularly, when the investigation is not

completed.

The Bail Application is accordingly dismissed.

K.T.SANKARAN,
JUDGE
csl