IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. BADHARUDEEN MONDAY, THE 22^ND DAY OF MAY 2023 / 1ST JYAISHTA, 1945 BAIL APPL. NO. 3751 OF 2023 Crime No.478/2012 of Mangalapuram Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram.

PETITIONER:

GOPAKUMAR @ KANNAN AGED 34 YEARS GOPALAKRISHNA MANDIRAM, PUTHEN NADA ANCHUTHENGU, KADAKKAVOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN 695001, PIN - 695001 BY ADV M.R.SARIN RESPONDENT:

STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN -

682031 BY ADV PUBLIC PROSECUTOR OTHER PRESENT:

SR PP T V NEEMA THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22.05.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

O R D E R

Dated this the 22^nd day of May, 2023 This is the second application filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking regular bail and the petitioner is the 1^st accused in crime No.478/2012 of Mangalapuram Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Public Prosecutor in detail. Perused the relevant materials form part of the case diary including the history of the case pointed out by the learned Public Prosecutor.

3. In this matter, the prosecution case is that, accused Nos. 1 to 3 committed murder of one Prakasan after taking him inside an autorickshaw bearing registration No. KL-16-H-3908, driven by the 4^th accused. Accordingly, crime alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 302, 201 r/w 34 of IPC as well as under Section 3(1) r/w 181 of MV Act was registered and thereafter Final Report also was filed on 30.10.2013.

4. In fact the bail application at the instance of the petitioner was considered by this court as per Annexure-A2 order in B.A.No. 2106/2023 dated 05.04.2023 and the same was dismissed as under:-

“4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that, the petitioner is innocent and he has been in custody for the last 101 days. Therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioner pursued the relief of regular bail to the petitioner.

5. Strongly opposing grant of regular bail to the petitioner, the learned Public Prosecutor submitted that this is a crime of the year 2012 and the petitioner was arrested as early on 04.07.2012 and thereafter released on bail. But, after the release of the petitioner on bail, he absconded and the trail was stalled. Accordingly, his case was moved to long pending register vide L.P.No. 23/2018 and after tedious efforts, the Police could arrest the petitioner on 19.12.2022. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that, if the petitioner would be released on bail, he would abscond from trial since he was a person absconded for a long period of 10 years to defeat the trail.

6. On perusal of the case records, the arguments advanced by the learned Public Prosecutor could be seen, prima facie. In this case, the petitioner was earlier arrested on 04.07.2012 and he had executed bail bond to appear before the Court without fail to facilitate trail. But the petitioner absconded for a long period of ten years. Accordingly, his case was included in the long pending register (L.P.No.23/2018) and the petitioner was arrested after ten years as on 19.12.2022. The allegation against the petitioner is commission of offence of murder.

7. In criminal prosecution availability of witnesses within a reasonable time is an important criteria to effectuate fair trial. The absconsion of the petitioner for a pretty long time in fact would affect fair trial since likelihood of availability of witnesses may loose during the long period of time. Therefore, the petitioner, who absconded for a period of ten years cannot be released on bail for any reason and his trial shall be completed keeping him in custody.

In view of the above, bail plea at the instance of the petitioner cannot be considered at all. Accordingly, this bail application stands dismissed.”

5. In fact nothing argued to substantiate any change in the circumstances to seek bail again since the