IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT WEDNESDAY, THE 23RD JANUARY 2008 / 3RD MAGHA 1929 Bail Appl..No. 374 of 2008() ---------------------------- CRIME NO. 485/07 OF AROOR POLICE STATION CRMP.3781/2007 of ADDL.D.C. & ADDL.MACT,ALAPPUZHA. CRMP.5367/2007 of J.M.F.C.-II, CHERTHALA .................... PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.2 ---------------------------------------- BENNY, AGED 19 YEARS, S/O LATE JOHN, POOTHOTTU VEEDU, POST OFFICE JUNCTION, MULLAMPADY, THIRUVAMPADY PANCHAYATH, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.B.ASOKAN RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT ------------------------ STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE CHERTHALA, THROUGH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. S.U. NAZAR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - B.A.No. 374 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 23rd day of January, 2008 O R D E R Application for regular bail. The petitioner faces allegations under Sections 364 and 394 I.P.C. Altogether there are two accused persons. The petitioner is the second accused. The alleged incident took place on the night of 23.11.2007. The defacto complainant is a taxi car driver. His car was hired by the accused. He was asked to go from place to place. Ultimately an attempt was made in the night to strangulate the defacto complainant by tying a rope around his neck. Fortunately he escaped. He ran to a neighbouring house and sought help from the people in that house. The car was driven away to the east. The people in the house said that there is no way towards east and the car must necessarily have to return. People collected and waited for the miscreants to return. When they returned, in an attempt to ensure that they do not go away, the persons present there broke the wind screen of the car. The defacto B.A.No. 374 of 2008 2 complainant rushed to the car and took away the key. One of the accused ran away. The petitioner is the other, who was available in the car and who was apprehended. The matter was promptly reported to the police. The petitioner remains in custody from 24.11.2007. The co-accused has subsequently been arrested. Investigation is in progress. Final report has not been filed yet. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent. He is a young boy, aged 19 years. He had consumed alcohol on that day. There was some dispute between the first accused and the defacto complainant about the fare payable. Because of such dispute, fanciful allegations are now raised, contends the counsel. 3. The learned Prosecutor opposes the application. He submits that the allegations are all raised in the prompt F.I. statement filed. A clear picture can be gathered from the nascent narration in the F.I.R. In any view of the matter, the petitioner does not deserve to be granted bail at this stage. The Investigators may be granted reasonable time in B.A.No. 374 of 2008 3 a serious and gruesome crime like the instant one to complete the investigation, submits the learned Prosecutor. 4. The case diary has been placed before me. Having perused the same, the F.I.R. in particular, and having considered all the relevant inputs I find merit in the opposition by the learned Prosecutor. I agree that the petitioner is not entitled to be enlarged on bail in a serious crime like the instant one, at this early stage. 5. 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 6.2.2008. The Investigators shall, in the meantime, make every endeavour to complete the investigation. (R. BASANT) Judge tm