IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN WEDNESDAY, THE 23RD DECEMBER 2009 / 2ND POUSHA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 7495 of 2009 CRIME NO.835 OF 2009 OF CHENGANNUR POLICE STATION, ALAPPUZHA APPLICANT/ACCUSED ------------------------------------- SHERIN KARNAVAR, W/O.BINU KARNAVAR, KARNAVAR'S VILLA, THURUTHIMEL MURI, CHERIYANADU VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU SRI.VIPIN NARAYAN RESPONDENT: COMPLAINANT -------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTING THE S.I. OF POLICE, CHENGANNUR POLICE STATION. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF PROSECUTION SRI.V.G.GOVINDAN NAIR PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.C.K.SURESH THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------ B.A. NO. 7495 OF 2009 ------------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 23rd day of December, 2009 O R D E R This is an application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner is the first accused in Crime No.835 of 2009 of Chengannur Police Station. 2. The offences alleged against the accused persons are under Sections 114, 120B, 394, 449 and 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. Bhaskara Karnavar, Karnavar's Villa, Cheriyanadu Village was found dead in the morning of 8.11.2009. The matter was reported to the police by his nephew. The crime was registered under Section 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Investigation revealed that Bhaskara Karnavar was murdered. 4. The prosecution case is that the petitioner, with the help of accused Nos.2 to 4, committed the murder of Bhaskara Karnavar to B.A. NO. 7495 OF 2009 :: 2 :: grab his property, valuable documents and wealth. Bhaskara Karnavar was working in the United States of America for quite some time. His wife was also working there, who passed away few years ago. 5. The petitioner was arrested on 12.11.2009 and she was remanded to judicial custody. 6. The records reveal that Bhaskara Karnavar, his son, the petitioner and a maid servant were residing in the house. The driver employed by Bhaskara Karnavar was residing in the outhouse. It was found by the investigating officer that in very many places in the house, in the bedroom of Bhaskara Karnavar and on the body of Bhaskara Karnavar, chilly powder was sprinkled. According to the prosecution, this was made deliberately to avoid a sniffer dog from finding out the places where the accused had gone after committing the crime and thus tracing out the accused. 7. The petitioner had filed B.A.No.7021 of 2009 under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. That application was dismissed by the order dated 4.12.2009. B.A. NO. 7495 OF 2009 :: 3 :: 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that one of the reasons pointed out by the prosecution for opposing the Bail Application filed by the petitioner earlier was that accused Nos.2 to 4 were not arrested. The counsel submits that now the other accused in the case have been arrested and they are in judicial custody. Therefore, there is no reason why the petitioner should be detained further. The counsel also pointed out that the prosecution has not put forward any specific case with respect to the offence committed by the petitioner, the manner in which Bhaskara Karnavar was murdered, the motive for the same and the connection between the petitioner and the other accused persons. 9. Learned Director General of Prosecution submitted that polygraph test was conducted on the petitioner and that report of the polygraph test would indicate that the petitioner was not disclosing the truth and the relevant details. It is also pointed out that several data are forthcoming and that it is necessary to make a thorough investigation in respect of the matters to arrive at a correct conclusion. The petitioner was available in the house on the night on which the incident took place and by picking holes in the prosecution B.A. NO. 7495 OF 2009 :: 4 :: case, she cannot say that she was not involved in the offence. The presence of the petitioner at the relevant time is a very important factor to be taken note of, submits the learned Director General of Prosecution. The investigation is still progressing and a final conclusion would be arrived at after examining all the relevant inputs. It is submitted that the prosecution cannot jump into a conclusion and put forward a story at this juncture. 10. The learned Director General of Prosecution also submitted that accused Nos.2 to 4 are experienced professionals in crimes. Their activities are to be probed into in great detail. The connection between the petitioner and the other accused persons, their business dealings and their activities are to be gone into in detail so as to arrive at a correct conclusion in respect of the commission of the offence in the present case. The motive for the commission of the offence and the relevant factors which contributed to the incident are to be brought out by meticulous investigation. Learned Director General of Prosecution submitted that if the petitioner is released on bail at this stage, it would adversely affect the smooth progress of the investigation. B.A. NO. 7495 OF 2009 :: 5 :: 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the prosecution is in the dark as to what happened and the personal liberty of the petitioner cannot be curtailed in order to give time to the prosecution to make a further probe in the matter, which, according to the counsel, they should have done within a few days of the date of incident. It is submitted that the personal liberty of an individual is more relevant and important. 12. It is true that the personal liberty of an individual is precious. But it is also to be borne in mind that the father-in-law of the petitioner was murdered and during that night she was also present in the house. There are materials, prima facie, to indicate that the petitioner is also involved in the offence. The various inputs now available before the investigating agency have to be analysed properly and further investigation is to be made on the basis of those materials. In a case of this nature, it is not proper to count the days during which the accused was in jail and to decide the Bail Application on that basis. The provisions of Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure give an indication that an accused who is detained would be entitled to be released on default bail only if the investigation is not completed within the time prescribed therein. The B.A. NO. 7495 OF 2009 :: 6 :: period prescribed under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure is not over. As a matter of right, the petitioner cannot claim that she should be released on bail, irrespective of the consequences which would follow on her release. What is more important is to bring the culprits to the book and to effectively prosecute the offenders. Making a show of investigation and arraying some of the persons as accused would not be sufficient in a murder case like this, as rightly pointed out by the learned Director General of Prosecution. The prosecution has to effectively conduct the investigation and bring home the guilt of the accused. The prosecution has also to find out the role played by each accused in the case, to the extent possible. If the petitioner is released on bail at this stage, as rightly pointed out by the learned Director General of Prosecution, it would have adverse impact on the proper investigation of the case. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner at this stage. For the aforesaid reasons, the Bail Application is dismissed. (K.T.SANKARAN) Judge ahz/