High Court Kerala High Court

Vellath Harif vs State Of Kerala on 13 October, 2010

Kerala High Court
Vellath Harif vs State Of Kerala on 13 October, 2010
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Bail Appl..No. 6356 of 2010()


1. VELLATH HARIF, S/O.POCKER,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



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

                For Petitioner  :SRI.ZUBAIR PULIKKOOL

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.RAMKUMAR

 Dated :13/10/2010

 O R D E R
                        V. RAMKUMAR, J.
                   * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
             Bail Application No. 6356 of 2010
              * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
              Dated: 13th day of October, 2010

                              ORDER

Petitioner, who is the 21st accused in Crime No.385/2009 of

Nadapuram Police Station for offences punishable under Sections

143, 147, 148, 353 and 188 read with 149 IPC, Section 3(1) of

P.D.P.P Act and Section 3 and 5 of Explosive Substance Act, seeks

his enlargement on bail. The occurrence took place on

13.10.2009. The petitioner’s formal arrest was recorded on

27.9.2010.

2. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application

contending inter-alia that on 13.10.2009 and 24.10.2009 two

police parties were attacked with country bombs giving rise to

Crime Nos.381 and 410 of 2009. In crime No.385/2009, about

250 persons had attacked the police party necessitating 13

rounds of police firing to disburse the unlawful assembly. The

petitioner was the person who supplied country bombs, which

were exploded in all the above three crimes.

Bail Application No. 6356 of 2010
2

3. Having regard to the nature of the allegations levelled

against the petitioner, the relative conduct of the parties, the

nature of the injury sustained, the sentiments of the near relatives

of the victim 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. I

am, therefore, not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner at this

stage.

This petition is accordingly dismissed.

V. RAMKUMAR, (JUDGE)
dmb