IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT TUESDAY, THE 25TH MARCH 2008 / 5TH CHAITHRA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 1707 of 2008() ----------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 26/02/2008 IN & CRLMC 271/2008 IN CRLMC.270/2008 of D.C. & SESSIONS COURT, ERNAKULAM MP.666/2008 of J.M.F.C.-I,KOCHI CRIME NO.900/07 OF NJARACKAL POLICE STATION .................... PETITIONER : 2ND ACCUSED ----------------- ANIL P.T., AGED 36 YEARS, S/O.THILAKAN PAZHAGANATTUTHARA HOUSE, MALIPPURAM P.O. BY ADV. SRI.T.N.SURESH SRI.ROY THOMAS RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. STATE REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. C.I. OF POLICE, NJARACKAL POLICE STATION ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.JAI GEORGE THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J ------------------------------------ B.A.No.1707 of 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 25th day of March, 2008 ORDER Application for regular bail. Petitioner is the 2nd accused and he faces allegations in a crime registered alleging the offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C. Some of the co-accused had come before this Court claiming regular bail and by order dated 4.2.08 in B.A.No.515 of 2008 and order dt.11.03.08 in B.A.1394 of 2008, this Court had dismissed those bail applications. Facts have been adverted to in detail in those orders. I am hence not proceeding to advert to facts in any greater detail in this order. This order must be read in continuation of the said orders. 2. The incident took place on 16.12.07. The victim and the 1st accused had some disagreement about the manner in which the fruits of an earlier crime was split. For discussions and settlement of that issue, the victim was allegedly invited to be at a certain place. When he went there along with another person, he was allegedly attacked, as per prior design, by the accused persons. The victim has suffered as many as 40 injuries including incised injuries. The petitioner was arrested on 11.02.08. He continues in custody from that date. B.A.No.1707 of 2008 2 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is absolutely innocent. Some of the co-accused have already been granted regular bail by the learned Sessions Judge. In these circumstances, the petitioner herein may also be granted regular bail, it is prayed. 4. The learned Public Prosecutor opposes the application. The learned Public Prosecutor points out that this Court had twice dismissed regular bail applications of the co-accused. It is true that the learned Sessions Judge had subsequently granted regular bail to some of the co-accused who had remained in custody from 5.1.08. That by itself cannot operate as valid reason to justify the claim for regular bail by the petitioner. The investigators in a serious crime like this may be given reasonable further time to complete the investigation. The petitioner may not be enlarged on bail now, submits the learned Public Prosecutor. 5. Having considered all the relevant inputs, I find merit in the opposition by the learned Public Prosecutor. I take note of the submission of the learned Public Prosecutor that the investigations reveal specific overt acts against the petitioners. In any view of the matter, I am satisfied that the Investigating Officer deserves reasonable further time to complete the investigation. B.A.No.1707 of 2008 3 6. This application for regular bail is, in these circumstances, dismissed, but with the observation that the petitioner shall be at liberty to move this Court for bail again at a later stage of the investigation - not, at any rate, prior to 08.04.08. The investigator shall in the meantime make every endeavour to complete the investigation. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) rtr/-