IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN WEDNESDAY, THE 7TH SEPTEMBER 2011 / 16TH BHADRA 1933 Bail Appl..No. 7068 of 2011(E) ----------------------------- CRIME No.702/2011 OF VARKALA POLICE STATION. PETITIONER/ ACCUSED No. 2: ----------------------------------------- SANOBAR, AGED 41, S/O.ABDUL HAMEED, CHARUVILA HOUSE, THENNOORKONAM, PREM NAZEER NAGAR, KEEZHVILLAM VILLAGE, CHIRAYANKEEZHU, BY ADV. SRI.B.RAMAN PILLAI RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT ------------------------------------------------ STATE REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. C.K. SURESH THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07/09/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. --------------------------------- B.A.No.7068 OF 2011 --------------------------------- Dated this the 7th day of September, 2011 ORDER This is an application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner is accused No.2 in Crime No.702 of 2011 of Varkala Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram District. 2.The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 120B, 364, 302, 201 and 109 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3.The prosecution case is the following: On 9.7.2011, Salim, the deceased was found missing. The matter was reported to the police on 10.7.2011, and the Crime was registered for man missing. On 10.7.2011, Kallambalam Police seized a blue WagonR car in an abandoned state near the KTCT Hospital, Chathanpara. Crime No.701/2011 under Section 102 of the Code of B.A.No.7068 OF 2011 2 Criminal Procedure was registered at Kallambalam Police Station. That case was transferred to Varkala Police Station, on finding that the car belonged to Salim, the deceased, who was residing within the limits of Varkala Police Station. The wife of Salim filed WP(Habeas Corpus) No.340 of 2011 before the High Court for production of Salim before the Court. It was alleged in the Writ Petition that respondents 6 and 7 therein (Sherif and Shaheer), were keeping Salim in illegal custody. Shaheer is the brother of the petitioner herein. On investigation, it was found that Sherif was involved in the murder of Salim. He was arrested. Investigation also revealed that Sherif invited the deceased to his house, and murdered him. The body of the deceased was cut into several pieces and the same was disposed of in a waste dumping pit in plastic covers. Investigation also revealed that the petitioner, the second accused, instigated Sherif to murder Salim. The petitioner was working abroad. He came to India on 5.8.2011. The petitioner was arrested from Thiruvananthapuram Airport on 5.8.2011 and he was remanded to judicial custody. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner B.A.No.7068 OF 2011 3 submitted that there is no material to connect the petitioner with the Crime. The counsel submitted that except the confession statement of the first accused, there is nothing to indicate that the petitioner is involved in the offence. The counsel submitted that confession of a co-accused cannot be used against the petitioner to implicate him in the offence. 5. The State Prosecutor submitted that the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner is not correct and there are enough materials to connect the petitioner with the Crime. The State Prosecutor submitted the following facts with reference to the materials on record: 6. During investigation, it was revealed that deceased Salim was engaged in money lending at lower rates of interest. The deceased was working in Riyadh. The petitioner was also at Riyadh. The petitioner used to take huge amounts of money from the deceased on lower rates of interest. Thereafter, the petitioner used to lend that money to others at higher rates of interest. In that process, the petitioner was making huge sums of money. The petitioner decided to collect as much money as B.A.No.7068 OF 2011 4 possible from the deceased and thereafter to murder him. The petitioner sought the assistance of Sherif for executing the murder of Salim. Deceased Salim was a womaniser. Knowing the weakness of Salim, the petitioner and Sherif hatched a conspiracy to attract Salim to the house of Sherif and to do away with him. As a consequence of the conspiracy, on the fateful day, Sherif invited the deceased to the house of the former, on the assurance that he had arranged a beautiful woman. The deceased was taken to the house of Sherif in an Ambassador Car. Sedative substances were administered to the deceased, by mixing the sedative with beer. After the deceased became unconscious, he was cut into pieces with a specially made weapon for that purpose with the assistance of one Mohanan. The pieces of the body were put in plastic bags and they were disposed of in the manner mentioned above. 7. The State Prosecutor also submitted that the petitioner was in constant touch with Sherif as well as the deceased on the date of the incident. It is also alleged that a Sim card was taken using the passport copy of one Hameed, who had taken loan from the petitioner. It is alleged that Hameed had given B.A.No.7068 OF 2011 5 the copy of the passport to the petitioner, while taking the loan. Using that copy of the passport and fixing the photograph of a Bangladesi national, a passport was forged in the name of one Rajiv. Using that passport, a Sim card was obtained in the name of Rajiv and it was being used by Sherif for contacting the deceased. It is alleged that getting such a mobile Sim card was also as a result of the conspiracy hatched between the petitioner and the first accused Sherif. The allegation is that the petitioner offered a very huge amount of `50 lakhs to Sherif for implementing the ideas of the petitioner to murder Salim. 8. The prosecution also alleges that the petitioner came to India using a fake passport. Another Crime was registered against the petitioner in respect of that offence. It is alleged that the petitioner had entrusted his business in Riyadh to his brother and the petitioner has got his visa cancelled. 9. The prosecution also alleges that the petitioner had purchased large extents of property in various places in various Districts using the money which he gained by deceiving Salim and also out of the profit which he derived using the money of B.A.No.7068 OF 2011 6 Salim. On verification of the Bank Accounts of the petitioner, it was found that he was not having that much money in the accounts, which was required for purchasing large extents of property in his name. 10. The prosecution case is that the petitioner had collected more than `1 Crore from the deceased on various occasions. The State Prosecutor also submitted that when the relatives of Salim contacted the petitioner after the death of Salim, the petitioner did not reveal the telephonic conversation which he had with Salim on the previous days of his death. The petitioner also did not disclose to them that he had borrowed amounts from Salim. The petitioner stated to them that he did not owe any amount to deceased Salim. The State Prosecutor submitted that the petitioner is an intelligent criminal, who succeeded in eliminating Salim after receiving huge amounts from him. The Crime was committed only for the purpose of amassing wealth. It is stated that the petitioner committed the Crime in a very sophisticated manner leaving no trails, according to him. The State Prosecutor submitted that the manipulations done with the aid of technological developments, B.A.No.7068 OF 2011 7 which were used for the commission of the Crime, became valuable links to trace the offence committed by the petitioner, and to enable the prosecution to implicate him as an accused. It is submitted that the various details collected during investigation would clearly disclose the complicity of the petitioner in the offence. It is submitted that if bail is granted to the petitioner, he would make himself scarce and flee from justice. The conduct of the petitioner in going outside India, using fake passport is tell-tale of the capability of the petitioner to make himself scarce. 11. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, the complex nature of the offence and also the various technics allegedly employed by the petitioner in the commission of the grave offence, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. If bail is granted to the petitioner, it is almost certain that he would flee from justice and make himself scarce. It is also most likely that he would indulge in terrorizing, intimidating or influencing the witnesses and tampering with the evidence. The investigation is at the initial state and if the petitioner is released on bail, he would cause great damage to B.A.No.7068 OF 2011 8 the proper and smooth investigation of the case. For the aforesaid reasons, the Bail Application is dismissed. K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE cms