1. The petitioner herein has been arrayed as accused No.1 among the four accused in the instant Crime No.636/2019 of Museum Police Station, which has been registered for offences punishable under Secs.294(b), 341, 342, 324, 326, 506(ii) and 302 read with Sec.34 of IPC, which has been suo motu registered by the SHO of he Police Station concerned on 25.03.2019.

2. The brief of the prosecution case is that A-1 & A-2 in this case and the deceased and his group are rival parties and on account of the said animosity, on 24.03.2019 at about 10.30 p.m., at the public road near Barton Hill, Kunnukuzhy, Vanchiyoor Village, A-1 had abused the deceased Ani using extremely foul and obscene words and intercepted him and A-1 during the scuffle, sat on his body, hit on his head with a chopper and then the deceased Anil had ward it off using his left hand. Thereupon, A-1 had stood on his left hand and thereby prevented his escape, whereupon A-1 had struck several times on the head and limbs of the deceased caused fatal injuries and he had inflicted 74 antemortem injuries on the deceased using the abovesaid chopper. While so, A-2 had abused and threatened other and thereby prevented some intercepting. Thereafter, both A-1 & A-2 had together escaped in their motorcycle ridden by the 2nd accused. Later, the victim Ani had succumbed to his injuries. The prosecution would further state that the above said offences were done in furtherance of the common intention of both the accused and that accused Nos.1 &2 had committed the abovesaid offences. Accused Nos.3 & 4 have been implicated on allegation that they have committed offence as per Sec.212 of the IPC (harbouring offender).

3. Sri. Sathamangalam. S. Ajith Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/accused would urge that the above said allegations are false and baseless and that the petitioner has already suffered detention in this case since 31.3.2019 and that no effective purpose would be sub served by the continued incarceration of the petitioner and that this Court may order to release him on regular bail subject to any appropriate stringent conditions.

4. Sri.Saiji Jacob Palatty, learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent State and Sri. Arun Chand, learned Advocate appearing for the widow of the deceased victim has strongly opposed the plea for regular bail, more particularly, Sri. Saigi Jacob Palatty, learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State would state that the final report/charge sheet in this case has been filed as early as on 19.6.2019 and that after committal, the case has been pending as Sessions Case, S.C.No.1221/2019 on the file of the Additional Sessions Court No.IV, Thiruvananthapuram and that the trial in the above said Sessions Case is scheduled to commence from 6.2.2020 to 13.3.2o20 and that the charge witnesses, CW1 to CW96 have been cited as witnesses to adduce evidence on behalf of the prosecution and that the prosecution would fully co-operate with the Sessions Court to ensure that the trial is completed within the schedule already fixed by the Sessions Court. Further very crucially the learned Public Prosecutor would point out that the allegations in this case are very serious and grave and further that the petitioner got adverse criminal antecedents and that out of the 14 pending cases, he has been acquitted in six cases and convicted in one case and other cases have been pending for trial and the prosecution has str0ng reasons to believe that the petitioner would intimidate and influence the witnesses in this case, if he is let off on bail.

5. Sri. Arun Chand, learned counsel appearing for the widow of the deceased victim would urge that the petitioner is having connections with various persons of strong criminal background and that the widow of the deceased victim is under constant threat from various corners and that they have a serious apprehension that in case A1 is released on bail, he would tamper with the evidence and would intimidate and influence the witnesses etc.

6. On a previous occasion, this Court as per order Annexure-B order dated 27.8.2019 in B.A.No.5929/2019 has dismissed the regular bail plea made by the petitioner in relation to the same crime.

7. After hearing both sides and after careful evaluation of the facts and circumstances of the case and taking note of the crucial fact that the sessions trial is now scheduled to commence on 6.2.2020 onwards and also taking into account the extreme gravity and seriousness of the offence involved as well as the criminal antecedents of the petitioner etc., this Court is not in a position to overrule the above said stand taken by the prosecution regarding the serious apprehension that the petitioner is highly likely to intimidate and influence the witnesses, if he is let off on bail. If all the parties concerned fully co-operate with the Sessions Court, then the trial, which is to commence on 6.2.2020 could be duly completed at least by the end of March 2020. In view of the totality of these aspects, this Court is not in a position to countenance the plea of the petitioner for grant of regular bail. The application fails and the same thus stands dismissed.