IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Bail Appl..No. 6814 of 2009()
1. SUMESH, AGED 19 YEARS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.BLAZE K.JOSE
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.T.SANKARAN
Dated :25/11/2009
O R D E R
K.T. SANKARAN, J.
---------------------------
B.A. No. 6814 of 2009
------------------------------------
Dated this the 25th day of November, 2009
O R D E R
This is an application for bail under Section 439 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner is the accused in Crime
No.305/2009 of Kovalam Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram.
2. The offence alleged against the petitioner is under Section
302 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. On 5/7/2009, a decomposed dead body of a person was
found under a bridge. The police was informed. The Post Mortem
Examination revealed that the deceased had sustained injuries on
his head and neck. There are 15 antemortem injuries noted in the
Post Mortem Certificate.
4. The crime was originally registered under Section 174 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure.
5. On Abin Raj, S/o. Rajendran was missing from
28/6/2009. Crime No.423/2009 was registered by Thiruvallam
Police for man missing in respect of Abin Raj on 27/9/2009.
6. The petitioner was arrested in connection with Crime
No.413/2009 on 14/9/2009. That was a case in respect of theft
B.A. No. 6814/2009
2
committed in a church. The petitioner was released on bail on
30/9/2009 in Crime No.413/2009.
7. The petitioner was arrested in the present case on
7/10/2009 and he was remanded to judicial custody.
8. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that
the Post Mortem examination revealed that the deceased was
aged 33years and therefore, the prosecution case that the dead
body was that of Abin Raj would not be correct. Abin Raj was
aged only 20 years. It is also submitted that there is no material
to connect the petitioner with the offence.
9. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the
investigation is at the initial stage. The deceased sustained
several injuries. It is suspected that the offence was committed
near the house of the petitioner. If so, the complicity of other
persons is also a matter for investigation. The investigation so far
conducted would indicate that there is no eye witness to the
incident. Of course, it is also a matter to be further investigated.
It is also submitted that discovery of weapon was effected under
Section 27 of the Evidence Act, following the confession made by
B.A. No. 6814/2009
3
the petitioner. The purse belonging to the deceased was also
discovered under Section 27 of the Evidence Act.
10. In the facts and circumstances of the case, it is not
proper to release the petitioner on bail at this stage. If the
petitioner is released on bail, it would affect the proper
investigation of the case. It is to be noted that the petitioner is
involved in another case of theft as well. It is alleged that the
petitioner is an addict to Alcohol and drugs. These circumstances
are also relevant in considering the question whether it is proper
to release the petitioner on bail at this stage.
11. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the
view that bail cannot be granted to the petitioner.
For the aforesaid reasons, the Bail Application is
dismissed.
K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE
scm