IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT MONDAY, THE 14TH JANUARY 2008 / 24TH POUSHA 1929 Bail Appl..No. 150 of 2008() ---------------------------- CRIME NO. 571/07 OF KAYAMKULAM POLICE STATION CMP.7972/2007 of J.M.F.C., KAYAMKULAM .................... PETITIONER/11TH ACCUSED ---------------------------------------- ABDUL ASSISS @ ASSIS (MONICA), AGED 50 YEARS, S/O.UMMERKUNJU, CHALIL VEEDU, KMC WARD NO.IX, KAYAMKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.G.PRIYADARSAN THAMPI RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT ------------------------ STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTING CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KAYAMKULAM POLICE STATION, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. S.U. NAZAR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - B.A.No. 150 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 14th day of January, 2008 O R D E R Application for regular bail. The petitioner is the 11th accused. He faces allegations in a crime registered for offences punishable, inter alia, under Section 302 r/w. 120B I.P.C. The crux of the allegations is that the deceased, a jaggery merchant hailing from Tamil Nadu, who was carrying on business in the Kayamkulam market also was done away with by accused 1 to 11 on account of prior animosity which accused 9 and 10 entertained towards the deceased. He was allegedly a former employee of the 10th accused. He was also engaged in identical business in jaggery in competition with accused 9 and 10. The success of the deceased hurt accused 9 and 10 and they allegedly conspired to make arrangements to liquidate the deceased. At the instance of the 9th accused the petitioner herein/A11 allegedly secured the services of the 7th accused and wanted him to undertake the task of liquidation. Accused No.7 had procured B.A.No. 150 of 2008 2 the services of accused 1 to 8, who had carried out the mission of murdering the deceased. The 7th accused, subsequent to the completion of the work, after getting the promised amount from accused 9 and 10, parted an amount of Rs.20,000/- to the petitioner herein for having helped him to secure this assignment. This in short is the allegation raised against the petitioner. He was absconding for some period of time after the incident. He was arrested on 21.12.2007 and he continues in custody from that date. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that even accepting the entire allegations, the petitioner had not participated in the conspiracy. He had only helped the 9th accused to locate the 7th accused and the deal was even admittedly entered directly between the 7th accused on the one hand and accused 9 and 10 on the other. The petitioner does not deserve to endure the trauma of further incarceration in prison. He may be enlarged on bail, prays the counsel. 3. The learned Prosecutor opposes the application. He submits that the available indications clearly show that the petitioner/A11 was acting in collusion with accused 9 and 10, evidently in pursuance of a B.A.No. 150 of 2008 3 criminal conspiracy to liquidate the deceased. The conduct of the petitioner cannot be seen in isolation and his conduct of procuring the 7th accused for accused 9 and 10 must be reckoned as an act of a conspirator. At any rate, at this early stage of investigation, the petitioner may not be enlarged on bail. The 10th accused has not been arrested yet. 4. 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. 4. 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 28.1.2008. The Investigators shall, in the meantime, make every endeavour to arrest the co-accused and complete the investigation. (R. BASANT) tm Judge B.A.No. 150 of 2008 4