IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT THURSDAY, THE 31ST JANUARY 2008 / 11TH MAGHA 1929 Bail Appl..No. 560 of 2008() ---------------------------- CRIME NO.571 OF 2007 OF KAYAMKULAM POLICE STATION : PETITIONER/ACCUSED ----------------------------------- K.S.RAVI, S/O. SUBBIAH NAICK, DOOR NO.67, AGED 50, WARD NO.2, BLOCK NO.7, LAKSHMI PURAM PANCHAYATH, PERIYAKULAM TALUK, THENI DIST. BY ADV. SRI.K.R.SUNIL RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT ------------------------ C.I. OF POLICE, KAYAMKULAM POLICE STATION, 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 31/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J. ---------------------- B.A.No.560 of 2008 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 31st day of January 2008 O R D E R Application for regular bail. The petitioner is the tenth accused. He faces allegations under Section 302 I.P.C. He had come to this court earlier for anticipatory bail and this court by a detailed order dated 14/12/2007 in B.A.No.7662/07 had dismissed the said application for anticipatory bail with observations. The petitioner had subsequently surrendered before the investigating officer on 15/1/2008. He was remanded to custody. He continues in custody from that date. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner prays that the petitioner may now be enlarged on bail. The learned Public Prosecutor opposes the said application. The learned Public Prosecutor submits that in a serious crime like this, the investigating officer may be granted reasonable further time to complete the investigation, the petitioner having surrendered only on 15/1/2008. 3. I have considered all the relevant inputs. I have adverted to facts in detail in the order dated 14/12/2007 referred above. It is not necessary for me to advert to facts in any greater B.A.No560./08 2 detail in this order. This order must be read in continuation of the said order. 4. I am not persuaded to agree that the petitioner deserves the invocation of the discretion under Section 439 Cr.P.C at this stage. I find merit in the opposition by the learned Public Prosecutor. I am satisfied that the investigating officer is certainly entitled to reasonable further time to complete the investigation. The alleged fact that the petitioner's wife had committed suicide on coming to know his alleged involvement in the crime and even the alleged fact that the petitioner is now admitted in the hospital after his remand are not, according to me, sufficient reasons to justify grant of bail to the petitioner now. 5. In the result, this petition is dismissed. However, I may hasten to observe that the petitioner shall be at liberty to move this court for bail again at later stages of the investigation not, at any rate, prior to 14/02/2008. The investigating officer shall, in the meantime, make every endeavour to complete the investigation. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) jsr // True Copy// PA to Judge B.A.No560./08 3 B.A.No560./08 4 R.BASANT, J. CRL.M.CNo. ORDER 21ST DAY OF MAY2007