IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN WEDNESDAY, THE 3RD FEBRUARY 2010 / 14TH MAGHA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 413 of 2010() ---------------------------- CRIME NO.976/2009 OF KASARAGOD POLICE STATION : PETITIONER-11TH ACCUSED ------------------------------------------- NAJEEMUDIN, SON OF MUHAMMED HAJI, AGED 30 YEARS, SHEREEFA MANZIL, THALANKRA, WEST HILL, KASARAGOD. BY ADV. SRI.M.RAMESH CHANDER SRI.ANEESH JOSEPH RESPONDENT(S): STATE -------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, KOCHI-31. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.TEKCHAND THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. --------------------------------------------- B.A.No.413 of 2010 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 3rd day of February, 2010 ORDER This is an application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner is accused No.11 in Crime No.976 of 2009 of Kasaragod Police Station. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 143, 147, 148, 459, 354, 323, 324, 120(B), 212, 364(A) and 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The gist of the prosecution case is the following: One Faizal Patel, brother of accused Nos.1 and 2, was having hawala money transactions. Faizal Patel was operating from the Middle East. A sum of Rs.16,30,000/- was given by Faizal Patel to one Rafeeq for the purpose of handing over the same to Ahammed, who in turn was expected to distribute the money to several customers. Rafeeq handed over the amount to Ahammed. Ahammed alleged that on 5.11.2009, certain persons robbed the amount from him. However, the matter was not reported to the police. Ahammed reported the matter to Faizal Patel. Faizal Patel made his own enquiries. His view was that Ahammed was BA No.413/2010 2 playing a game. Faizal Patel, his brothers and others attacked Ahammed. He was compelled to give back the money to Faizal Patel. Later, Ahammed was forced to assign sufficient immovable property to a person suggested by Faizal Patel. Accordingly, the immovable property belonging to Ahammed's father in law was assigned on 20.11.2009 in favour of Najeemudin (petitioner) as per a registered document. Najeemudin is the husband of Faizal Patel's wife's sister. 4. The prosecution further alleges that on further enquiry by Faizal Patel and his team, it was revealed that the amount of Rs.16,30,000/- was robbed by one Dawood. It was also found by them that Rafeeq was also acting in unison with Dawood. Since Faizal Patel was convinced that Ahammed was not responsible for taking the money, his father in law's property which was transferred to Najeemudin was re-transferred on 26.12.2009. On 30.12.2009, accused Nos.1 and 2, brothers of Faizal Patel and his associates, 15 in number, abducted Dawood from his house. In that process, they attacked the brother of Dawood and sister in law of Dawood. Later, at about 6.30 P.M., on 30.12.2009, three persons brought the dead body of Dawood BA No.413/2010 3 to Century Hospital, Kasaragod. The prosecution case is that Dawood was murdered by the accused persons. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is running a travel agency, namely Shereef Travels, at Kasaragod. There is no allegation that the petitioner was present along with the other accused at the time when Dawood was abducted or when he was murdered. The allegation is that the petitioner provided air tickets to the first accused to go abroad, after the murder of Dawood. The petitioner has no connection with the offence alleged. He was only involved in his travel agency business. He is not involved in any conspiracy. It is also submitted that the petitioner was arrested on 6.1.2010 and he is in judicial custody since then. It is not necessary that the petitioner should be kept in custody for the purpose of investigation. 6. From the facts stated above, prima facie, it is clear that the petitioner is also involved in the activities of Faizal Patel which culminated in the assignment of the property belonging to the father-in-law of Ahammed in favour of the petitioner and the re-transfer on 26.12.2009. It is also revealed that the air tickets BA No.413/2010 4 were provided by the petitioner to the first accused to go abroad, a few days after the re-transfer of the immovable property by the petitioner to the father in law of Ahammed and a few days after the murder of Dawood. 7. The investigation is at the preliminary stage. The facts are complicated. Several incidents took place which led to the commission of the offence. Several witnesses are to be examined and several materials are to be collected by the investigating agency. In view of the alleged complicity of the petitioner in the series of acts preceding the murder of Dawood, if the petitioner is released on bail at this stage, it would adversely affect the smooth and proper investigation of the case. As rightly pointed out by the learned Public Prosecutor, there is every likelihood that the petitioner may indulge in influencing or intimidating the witnesses if he is released on bail. It is also likely that he may make himself scarce. Only two of the accused were arrested in the case. If the petitioner is released on bail, there is a possibility that the investigating agency would not be able to arrest the other accused, as rightly pointed out by the learned Public Prosecutor. BA No.413/2010 5 For the aforesaid reasons, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner at this stage. The Bail Application is accordingly dismissed. K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE csl