IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH JANUARY 2008 / 26TH POUSHA 1929 Bail Appl..No. 133 of 2008(A) ----------------------------- CRIME NO.33/06 OF KODUVALLY POLICE STATION PETITIONER/8TH ACCUSED --------------------------------------- ABDURAHIMAN, S/O.MUHAMMED, AGED 42 YEARS, MANAKKATTIL HOUSE, KODIYATHUR AMSOM, KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SRI.M.K.DAMODARAN (SR.) SRI.GILBERT GEORGE CORREYA RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT ------------------------ STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. JAI GEORGE. THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. ------------------------------------------------- B.A. No. 133 OF 2008 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 16th day of January, 2008 ORDER Application for regular bail. The petitioner is the 8th accused. He along with the co-accused faces allegations in a crime registered, inter alia, under Sec.395 of the IPC. The crux of the allegations against the accused persons is that he was working as a driver to the de facto complainant. The de facto complainant allegedly had nefarious dealings in gold. The petitioner had schemed to rob the de facto complainant of money which he was having. He had planned and schemed to commit the offence on 4/2/06. On that day, the de facto complainant had come home with a lot of cash with him and the petitioner allegedly informed the other miscreants with whom there was prior meeting of minds of the availability of the de facto complainant with money at his house. After B.A. No. 133 OF 2008 -: 2 :- dropping the de facto complainant at his house, the petitioner sought permission to leave immediately with the car. He left with the car. He informed the other miscreants and they allegedly entered the house and committed dacoity. An alarm was raised by the wife and children of the de facto complainant. Local people assembled. They chased the miscreants. Two of them were caught. Interrogation revealed the complicity of the petitioner. The de facto complainant also had expressed doubts about the role of the petitioner in the First Information Statement itself. The petitioner had not returned to the house when the de facto complainant informed him of the unfortunate incident over the telephone. He had allegedly abandoned the vehicle and started absconding. He was detained under the COFEPOSA. As per a production warrant issued, the petitioner was produced before the learned Magistrate on 6/11/07. He was given over to the police custody and he continued in such custody for interrogation for sometime. He continues in judicial custody from 6/11/07 in this crime. Investigation is in progress. Final report has not been filed yet. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegations against the petitioner are not justified at all and that, at any rate, he, who has been remaining in custody in this crime B.A. No. 133 OF 2008 -: 3 :- from 6/11/07 and who has already been interrogated by the police, may now be enlarged on bail. The learned counsel for the petitioner points out that the miscreants, who had actually taken part in the operation, have been granted regular bail by now and they are at large. 3. The learned Public Prosecutor opposes the application. The allegations against the petitioner are serious and grave. He was party to a conspiracy with the co-accused to commit decoity in the house where he was working as an employee under the de facto complainant. At this early stage of the investigation, the petitioner is not entitled to the invocation of the discretion under Sec. 439 of the Cr.P.C., submits the learned Public Prosecutor. 4. I have perused the Case Diary. I have considered all the relevant inputs. Having considered all the relevant inputs, I find merit in the opposition by the learned Public Prosecutor. I agree with the learned Public Prosecutor that it is too early to consider the release of the petitioner on bail and that the Investigator, in a serious crime like the instant one, must be given further time to complete the investigation after the arrest of the petitioner. The fact that some of the co-accused who were arrested earlier had been granted bail earlier is no reason, according to me, to direct release of the petitioner on bail now. B.A. No. 133 OF 2008 -: 4 :- In coming to this conclusion, I have considered all the relevant inputs, including the nature and gravity of the allegations against the petitioner, his contumacious role in the crime as also the stage of the investigation. 5. In the result this bail application is dismissed. But, I may hasten to observe that the petitioner shall be at liberty to move this Court for bail again at a later stage of the investigation not, at any rate, prior to 30/1/2008. The Investigator shall, in the meantime, make every endeavour to complete the investigation. Sd/- (R. BASANT, JUDGE) Nan/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge