IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT TUESDAY, THE 11TH MARCH 2008 / 21ST PHALGUNA 1929 Bail Appl..No. 1394 of 2008() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.900/07 OF NJARAKKAL POLICE STATION PETITIONER : ACCUSED NO.9 ----------------------------- SANEESH, AGED 20 YEARS, S/O.REMANAN KALATHITHARA VEETTIL, VELIYATHAMPARAMBU NAYARAMBALAM. BY ADV. SRI.SHAIJAN C.GEORGE SRI.JOHN VIPIN SMT.S.A.SHERLY SMT.SAJITHA GEORGE RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT ------------------------ STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.S.U.NAZAR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J ------------------------------------ B.A.No.1394 of 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 11th day of March, 2008 ORDER Application for regular bail. Petitioner is the 9th accused in a crime registered under Section 302 I.P.C. The alleged incident took place on 16.12.07. Only the 1st accused is named in the F.I.R. Victim and the 1st accused had some disagreement about the manner in which the fruits of an earlier crime was suffered. The victim was allegedly invited to be at a certain place for discussions and settlement of that issue. When the victim went there along with another person, he was allegedly attacked as per the prior design of the accused persons. They unleashed a brutal attack on the victim with dangerous weapons. The victim suffered as many as 40 injuries. Some of the co-accused were arrested earlier. The petitioner herein was arrested on 01.02.08. He continues in custody from that date. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is absolutely innocent. No specific overt acts are alleged against him. He is a young person aged about 20 years. He is not named in the F.I.R. Long after the commencement of investigation, the 9th accused was brought on the array of B.A.No.1394 of 2008 2 accused. His name was shown as Kunhikannan. Later in the course of investigation, the petitioner who has the name Sanish was shown as 9th accused with the rider that he is Sanish @ Kunhikannan. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in no way connected with the crime. He has no criminal antecedents whatsoever. In these circumstances, the petitioner who has remained in custody from 01.02.08 may now be enlarged on bail, it is prayed. 3. The learned Public Prosecutor opposes the application. The learned Public Prosecutor submits that all the available materials point to the culpability of the petitioner. It is true that the petitioner was not named in the F.I.R. In fact the 1st accused alone has been named in the F.I.R. The fact that the petitioner is not named in the F.I.R cannot deliver any advantage to the petitioner, argues the learned Public Prosecutor. The learned Public Prosecutor further submits that in the course of investigation, the identity of all the persons who were present along with the 1st accused and who had indulged in the crime was ascertained. The petitioner has the name Sanish @ Kunhikannan. His friends are calling him by the name Kunhikannan. It was in these circumstances that at the initial stage he was referred to as B.A.No.1394 of 2008 3 Kunhikannan only. In the course of investigation when the details were ascertained he has been correctly described as Kunhikannan @ Sanish in the case diary. This alleged incongruity in the name cannot deliver any advantage to the petitioner at this stage. The petitioner may not be granted regular bail at this stage. Investigation is not complete. Nature and gravity of the crime may be taken note of. At any rate, the investigators may be granted reasonable further time to complete the investigation, submits the learned Public Prosecutor . 4. Having considered all the relevant inputs, I find merit in the opposition by the learned Public Prosecutor. The gravity and seriousness of the crime is certainly of vital relevance while considering the invocation of the discretion under Section 439 Cr.P.C. Having considered all the relevant inputs, I am satisfied that the petitioner is not entitled for grant of regular bail. In coming to this conclusion, I have taken note of all the relevant inputs including the nature and gravity of the crime alleged against the petitioner, quantum and quality of the data collected as also the stage of the investigation. I conclude that the investigating officer is entitled for reasonable further time to complete the investigation. B.A.No.1394 of 2008 4 5. 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 or the court below for bail again at a later stage of the investigation - not, at any rate, prior to 25.03.08. The investigator shall in the meantime make every endeavour to complete the investigation. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) rtr/-