IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT WEDNESDAY, THE 23RD JANUARY 2008 / 3RD MAGHA 1929 Bail Appl..No. 308 of 2008() ---------------------------- CRIME NO. 102/02 OF TIRURANGADI POLICE STATION CMP.3123/2007 of J.M.F.C.,PARAPPANANGADI .................... APPLICANT/6TH ACCUSED -------------------------------------- SREEDHARAN @ KODALY SREEDHARAN, S/O. KRISHNAN, PANIKKARUVALAPPIL HOUSE, KIZHAKKEKODALIYIL, MATTATHUR, THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU SRI.M.REVIKRISHNAN RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT ------------------------ STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. S.U. NAZAR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - B.A.No. 308 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 23rd day of January, 2008 O R D E R Application for regular bail. The petitioner is the 6th accused in a crime registered under Section 394 I.P.C. The alleged incident took place on 25.2.2002. The crux of the allegations is that when the defacto complainant, a jeweller, was proceeding to his house after closing his jewelery shop with a bag, which had ornaments and cash in it, and he got down from the vehicle and started walking towards his house, a group of miscreants - five in number - came in a Maruti car, attacked him and caused injuries to him in the course of their attempt to rob him of the bag containing the ornaments and cash. They succeeded in their mission and after the incident they went away in their car. Crime was promptly registered. Investigation commenced. The investigators could not get any clue of the miscreants. On 24.1.2003 it was decided that the investigation can be closed as the offence was undetected. It was so done. B.A.No. 308 of 2008 2 But later, on 16.8.2007, the investigation was re-opened as clues were obtained about the miscreants. 2. Six persons have been arrayed as accused. The first accused has been arrested. In the course of the investigation the complicity of the petitioner/A6 has been ascertained. He was involved in several other crimes. He came into police custody on 22.7.2007. His formal arrest in this case was recorded on 10.12.2007. Investigation is in progress. The petitioner continues in custody from 22.7.2007, but in this case only from 10.12.2007, the date on which his formal arrest was recorded. Investigation is not complete. Some of the co-accused remain to be arrested. 3. The precise allegation against the petitioner is that he, who has been the brain behind several such crimes committed at various places in Kerala, had identified the mission. He had engaged or interacted with accused 1 to 5 to commit the crime. He had planned and arranged the crime. After the crime, the miscreants had dutifully reported to him and shared the booty with him. He is thus alleged to be B.A.No. 308 of 2008 3 the brain behind the operation, though admittedly he was not present at the scene of the crime. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is absolutely innocent. After his arrest on 22.7.2007, the petitioner is being brought on the array of accused in several undetected crimes in the State. The petitioner has absolutely no connection with the crime in question as also in the several other cases in which he is now arrayed. In this case also he is dragged in without any satisfactory reasons. The prosecution is attempting to ensure the continued detention of the petitioner without his release by showing his arrest belatedly in various such crimes. The petitioner has been languishing in prison from 22.7.2007, though his arrest is shown in this case only on 10.12.2007. He may be granted regular bail, prays the learned counsel. The learned counsel submits that in all other cases, in which the petitioner has been shown as arrested, he has already been enlarged on bail as per orders of this Court, as the period of 90 days had elapsed from the date of the first remand, the Final Reports having not been filed. B.A.No. 308 of 2008 4 5. The learned Prosecutor opposes the application. He submits that though admittedly the petitioner was not present at the scene of the crime, his responsibility for the crime is many times greater than the ones who were actually present. There have been several crimes registered against the petitioner. There is a common pattern in all these crimes. The petitioner identifies the targets of the crime who are likely to carry large quantity of ornaments and cash. Thereafter a meticulous study is conducted on the manner in which the operation is conducted. He recruits people for the assignment. He gives instructions for the operations to be carried out. The strings are held by him and he ensures that the operation is done effectively. Considering the nature and the antecedents of the petitioner, he may not be enlarged on bail, submits the learned Prosecutor. 6. The learned Prosecutor points out that the prosecution has now got to rely on the confession statement of the co-accused. Investigation is progressing. At this stage, the confession of the co- accused recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. cannot and may not be B.A.No. 308 of 2008 5 ignored by this Court. They may also be reckoned as materials relevant for the consideration of the application for bail of the petitioner. 7. The case diary has been placed before me. The confession statement of the petitioner in this crime is not made available in the case diary in this crime. The confession statement of the first accused has been perused by me. I have scanned through the entire case diary. I need only mention that having considered all the relevant inputs, I am not persuaded to invoke the discretion under Section 439 Cr.P.C. in favour of the petitioner now. I find merit in the submission of the learned Prosecutor that the Investigators must be given reasonable further time after the arrest of the petitioner, the principal accused in this case, to complete the investigation before the question of grant of bail to the petitioner is considered favourably by this Court. 8. 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 6.2.2008. The Investigators B.A.No. 308 of 2008 6 shall, in the meantime, make every endeavour to arrest the co-accused and complete the investigation. (R. BASANT) Judge tm