Judgment · High Court · 2008

BY ADV. SRI.VINCENT JOSEPH RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT ------------------------ STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED THROUGH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM AT THE INSTANCE OF CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KAYAMKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. S.U. NAZAR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - B.A.No. 4 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 7th day of January, 2008

O R D E R Application for regular bail. The petitioner faces allegations in a crime registered, inter alia, under Section 302 I.P.C. The petitioner is the 9th accused. Altogether there are 11 accused persons. This court had occasion to consider the facts of this case in detail when the 10th accused came before this Court with an application for anticipatory bail. By order dt.14.12.2007 in B.A.No. 7662 of 2007 the said prayer of the 10th accused was turned down. Facts have been adverted to in detail in that order. This order must be read in continuation of that order. I am not hence adverting to facts in any greater detail in this order.

The crux of the allegations is that the deceased was an employee under the 10th accused, a jaggery merchant. After working for some time as employee of the 10th accused, the deceased wanted to do identical business on his own. The petitioner/A9 is another jaggery merchant of the locality. B.A.No. 4 of 2008 2 Accused 9 and 10 entertained animus against the deceased. They were jealous against the deceased, who was eating into the business, which accused 9 and 10 were enjoying. They allegedly conspired. Accused No.9 allegedly engaged accused 1 to 8. The mission was to liquidate the deceased. He was taken away from a market in a vehicle. Crime was registered under the caption 'man missing' initially. The dead body of the deceased was traced later. Investigation revealed the complicity of accused 9 and 10, who had allegedly engaged accused 1 to 8 to carry out the mission. Investigation is in progress. 10th accused was not arrested. 9th accused continues in custody from 21.11.2007.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent. The petitioner may now be enlarged on bail, subject to appropriate terms and conditions. He having remained in custody from 21.11.2007, it is not necessary to insist on further incarceration of the petitioner, submits the counsel.

The learned Prosecutor opposes the application. Investigation is not complete. Allegations are serious. Hire lings/mercenaries have been engaged by the 10th accused in an attempt to liquidate the deceased. The available indications point to the culpability of the B.A.No. 4 of 2008 3 petitioner. He may not be enlarged on bail, submits the learned Prosecutor.

4. Having considered all the relevant inputs, I find merit in the opposition by the learned Prosecutor. I am satisfied that at this early stage of investigation, the petitioner is not entitled to be released on bail. The important co-accused has not been arrested yet. The Investigators, in a serious crime like this, must be given sufficient time to complete the investigation, I am satisfied.

This application is, in these circumstance, dismissed. But I may hasten to observe that the petitioner shall be at liberty to move this court or the courts below for bail again at a later stage of the investigation, not at any rate, prior to 21.1.2008. The Investigators shall, in the meantime, make every endeavour to arrest the co-accused and complete the investigation. (R. BASANT) Judge