IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.P.BALACHANDRAN TUESDAY, THE 6TH MAY 2008 / 16TH VAISAKHA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 1161 of 2008() ----------------------------- CMP.101/2008 of J.F.C.M., KAYAMKULAM (CRIME NO.571/2007 OF KAYAMKULAM POLICE STATION) .................... PETITIONER/10TH ACCUSED ---------------------------------------- K.S.RAVI, S/O.SUBBIAH NAICK, DOOR NO.67, AGED 50, WARD NO.2, BLOCK NO.7, LAKSHMI PURAM PANCHAYATH, PERIYAKULAM TALUK, THENI DIST. BY ADV. SRI.K.R.SUNIL SRI.S.JEEVAKUMAR RESPONDENT/ COMPLAINANT ---------------------------------------- C.I. OF POLICE, KAYAMKULAM POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. MOHAMMED PUZHAKKARA THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/05/2008, ALONG WITH 1950 OF 2008 AND CONN.CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.P.BALACHANDRAN,J. ----------------------------------------- B.A.NOs.1161/08,1753/08,1950/08,1985/08, 2193/08 & 2645/08 ----------------------------------------------------- DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF MAY, 2008 O R D E R These are all applications for regular bail filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. 2. In B.A.No.1850/08 filed by accused 3 and 4 and in B.A.No.1950/08 filed by accused 2 and 9, this Court had granted bail to accused Nos.3, 4 and 9 as they were entitled to statutory bail as the investigation could not be completed within 90 days after they were being detained. 1st accused has also been enlarged on bail granting the benefit of section 167(2) Cr.P.C. B.A.No.1950/08, in as far as it relates to the 2nd accused remains to be considered. B.A.No.1161/08 by the 10th accused, B.A.No.1753/08 by the 5th accused, B.A.No.2193/08 by the 11th accused, B.A.No.1985/08 by accused 7 and 8 and B.A.No.2645/08 filed by the 6th accused have also come up for consideration. It is worthy to note that other than accused 1, 3, 4 and 9 who were entitled to statutory bail, no other accused had been granted bail and this Court vide common order passed in B.A.NO.1161/08 & Con. Cases -2- B.A.1850/08 & 1950/08 dated 28.3.2008 directed the court below to expedite the trial and to complete the trial before Courts reopen after mid-summer recess. It is seen from the letter of the District Judge that the trial Judge has sought for time to dispose of the case upto 30th June, 2008. But all the same, the direction of this Court vide order dated 28.3.2008 is there to complete the trial expeditiously if possible, before the courts re-open after mid summer recess. In view of the steps taken to dispose of the cases at the earliest and considering the gravity of the offence and the gruesome nature of the murder committed, I am not of the view that such of the accused who are not entitled to statutory bail can be enlarged on bail at present, especially in view of the directions given by this Court to the court below to complete the trial, if possible before re-opening of Courts. 3. In the result, without prejudice to the petitioners moving for bail afresh, in case the trial court is not able to dispose of the case before 31.5.2008, I dismiss B.A.No.1950/08 in relation to the 2nd accused and B.A.Nos.1161/08, 1753/08, 2193/08, 1985/08 and 2645/08 filed by such of the accused who are in custody from out of the 11 accused in the case. The B.A.NO.1161/08 & Con. Cases -3- petitioners shall be at liberty to approach the trial court for grant of bail in case trial is not completed before 31.5.2008 for any reason whatsoever despite directions of this Court. K.P.BALACHANDRAN, JUDGE. dsn