Raveendranath @ Mohanan Vs. the State of Kerala - Court Judgment

Excerpt:

[a.n.venugopala gowda j.] this writ petition is filed under article3 226 & 227 of the constitution of india praying to quash the order dated 20.2.10 passed by the ii additional city civil judge (cch no.25) bangalore on the application filed by the petitioner under section 151 of the code of civl1 procedure which is numbered as la.iv, in o.s.no.3908/2007 vide annex - e and etc......(c) (d) of i.p.c., seeks his enlargement on bail. the petitioner was arrested on 28.9.2010. 2. the learned public prosecutor opposed the application contending inter-alia that the counterfeit notes were manufactured by a4 using the printer supplied by the petitioner (a5) and a3 who is none other than the petitioner's son initially released the fake notes to a1 and a2. investigation of the case is still in the preliminary stage. the ramifications of the racket have not yet been fully probed by the investigating agency. 3. having regard to the gravity of the offences, nature of the allegations levelled against the petitioner, the relative conduct of the parties, the extent of the injury sustained, the propensities of the petitioner and the other facts and circumstances of the case, i am of the view that 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.

Judgment:

O R D E R

V. RAMKUMAR, J.

..................................

Bail Application No. 6731 of 2010

.....................................................

Dated: 3rd day of November, 2010

ORDER

Petitioner, who is the 5th accused in Crime No.335/2006 of CB CID, Thiruvananthapuram for offences punishable under Section 489 (A) (B) (C) (D) of I.P.C., seeks his enlargement on bail. The petitioner was arrested on 28.9.2010.

2. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application contending inter-alia that the counterfeit notes were manufactured by A4 using the printer supplied by the petitioner (A5) and A3 who is none other than the petitioner's son initially released the fake notes to A1 and A2. Investigation of the case is still in the preliminary stage. The ramifications of the racket have not yet been fully probed by the investigating agency.

3. Having regard to the gravity of the offences, nature of the allegations levelled against the petitioner, the relative conduct of the parties, the extent of the injury sustained, the propensities of the petitioner and the other facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that 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.