IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT MONDAY, THE 28TH JANUARY 2008 / 8TH MAGHA 1929 Bail Appl..No. 471 of 2008() ---------------------------- CRIME NO.571/07 OF KAYAMKULAM POLICE STATION CMP.7697/2007 of J.M.F.C., KAYAMKULAM .................... PETITIONER/9TH ACCUSED --------------------------------------- SENTHIL KUMAR,AGED 37,S/O.NADARAJAN GILLIPATTY ROAD,D/NO. 234/2,SARATHPATHY VILLAGE PERIYAKULAM TALUK,THENI DISTRICT STATE OF TAMILNADU. 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. JAI GEORGE THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - B.A.No. 471 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 28th day of January, 2008 O R D E R Second application for regular bail. The petitioner faces allegations in a crime registered under Sections 302 and 120B I.P.C. The petitioner is the 9th accused. Altogether there are 11 accused persons. The petitioner and the 10th accused allegedly entertained animus against the deceased. All three are jaggery merchants hailing from Theni in Tamil Nadu. The deceased was earlier an employee of the 10th accused. He later left the 10th accused and started jaggery business of his own. He was successful and his success was by treading on the toes of the petitioner and the 10th accused, who felt jealous of the success in the business of the petitioner. There was some disputes also between them. 2. The prosecution alleges that the petitioner and the 10th accused entered into a conspiracy to liquidate the deceased. They contacted the 11th accused, who in turn contracted the 7th accused, who engaged accused 1 to 8 for B.A.No. 471 of 2008 2 carrying out the mission. The deceased was allegedly taken forcibly in a car from a crowded bazar. His dead body was found a couple of days later. Crime was registered. Investigation was conducted. The Investigators were successful to resolve the mystery of the crime. The petitioner was arrested on 21.11.2007. He continues in custody from that date. An earlier application filed by the petitioner was dismissed as per order dt.7.1.2008. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent. He, like the deceased, only happened to be a former employee of the 10th accused. He has unnecessarily been dragged into the controversy. The petitioner, who has remained in custody from 21.11.2007, may now be enlarged on bail, prays the learned counsel. 4. The learned Prosecutor opposes the application. He submits that the available inputs clearly point to the complicity of the petitioner. No one has a case that the petitioner or the 10th accused did actually participate in the objectionable conduct of causing death of the deceased. But their complicity is graver in degree in as much as they B.A.No. 471 of 2008 3 have conspired and took the decision to liquidate the deceased by employing persons, who carried out the mission on behalf of accused 9 and 10. Accused 1 to 8 have questionable criminal antecedents. The fact that the petitioner did not actually take part in the crime may not in any way deliver any advantage to the petitioner, submits the learned Prosecutor. Investigation is not complete. Investigator is taking all steps to expeditiously complete the investigation. The petitioner may not be granted regular bail at this stage, submits the learned Prosecutor. 5. 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 Investigators, in a serious crime like this, must be given sufficient time to complete the investigation, I am satisfied. 5. 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 11.2.2008. The Investigators B.A.No. 471 of 2008 4 shall, in the meantime, make every endeavour to arrest the co-accused and complete the investigation. (R. BASANT) Judge tm