IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT FRIDAY, THE 29TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 10TH PHALGUNA 1929 Bail Appl..No. 1074 of 2008() ----------------------------- CRIME NO. 92/08 OF VIYYUR POLICE STATION AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 12/02/2008 IN MP 2066/08 IN MP.2063/2008 of J.M.F.C.-I,THRISSUR .................... PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS. 5 TO 7 ------------------------------------------------ 1. SAJEEVAN, S/O.CHANASSERY VEETTIL THAMPI, KODUVALLIKAD, MOOTHAKUNNAM. 2. LISHOY, S/O.THAIKOOTTATHIL SATHYAN, KODUVALLIKAD, MOOTHAKUNNAM. 3. VIJIL, S/O.ADHIKARATH BABU, VAVAKKAD, MOOTHAKUNNAM. BY ADV. SRI.P.K.SAJEEV RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT ------------------------ STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY S.I. OF POLICE, VIYYUR POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. S.U. NAZAR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/02/2008, ALONG WITH BA NO. 1393 & 1420 OF 2008 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - B.A.Nos.1074, 1393 & 1420 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 29th day of February, 2008 O R D E R Applications for regular bail. The petitioners are accused 5 to 9 in a crime registered alleging the offences punishable under Sections 120B and 399 I.P.C. The crux of the allegations against them is that they, along with accused 1 to 4, were found available in a vehicle in which dangerous weapons like swords, iron pipes etc. were kept. The accused persons were unable to explain their presence and purpose when they were intercepted by the police on 8.2.2008. They were arrested and they remain in custody from that date. 2. It is the case of the prosecution that the 10th accused, a Swamy of the locality, who has some disputes and differences with the local people, had engaged these persons as mercenaries to attack the opponents of the said Swamy and commit dacoity in the place. This is the allegation against the petitioners. The 10th B.A.Nos.1074, 1393 & 1420 of 2008 2 accused has not been arrested so far. An application for anticipatory bail filed by him is still pending before this Court. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are absolutely innocent. They have no criminal antecedents whatsoever. According to them, no dangerous weapons etc. were in the vehicle and the allegations to that effect are all false. The counsel for the 8th accused submits that he is a student, who had to leave for abroad to pursue his studies. He is aged 20 years. He had only accepted the invitation of the third accused to go with him on a pleasure trip. No weapon was in the vehicle and the 8th accused could not have assumed that the purpose of his co-travelers was anything mischievous. The counsel for the 9th accused contends that the said accused was even admittedly the driver of the vehicle. He has no part in the complicity of the other accused. At any rate, in these circumstances, the counsel plead that the petitioners, Accused 5 to 9, may be enlarged on bail. 4. The learned Prosecutor vehemently opposes the applications. He submits that the 10th accused, who is the kingpin of the operation, B.A.Nos.1074, 1393 & 1420 of 2008 3 has not been arrested so far. The materials available now clinchingly show that all these arrested accused persons were available in the car with dangerous weapons to implement the mission assigned to them by the 10th accused. It would be idle to assume that their purpose is not one which would bring them within the sweep of Section 399 I.P.C. In any view of the matter, the Investigators have not received sufficient time to complete the investigation. The prime accused still remains at large. In these circumstances the petitioners may not be released on bail, pleads the learned Prosecutor. He, however, concedes that no criminal antecedents are shown to exist for these petitioners. But that by itself is not a defence in an indictment under Section 399 I.P.C., urges the learned Prosecutor. 5. I have considered all the relevant inputs. At the present moment I find nothing to discredit the allegations of the prosecution that the petitioners may have committed the offence punishable under Section 399 I.P.C. At the same time, I do realisitically note that the case against the petitioners 1 to 4, who have questionable criminal antecedents, must be distinguished from the case of the petitioners, B.A.Nos.1074, 1393 & 1420 of 2008 4 who admittedly have no criminal antecedents whatsoever. I do take note of the submission of the learned Prosecutor that the 10th accused has not been arrested and for expeditious completion of the investigation he has got to be arrested. I am satisfied that some further time can be given to the Investigating Officer to complete the investigation. But the petitioners, who have no criminal antecedents, need not be compelled to languish in prison along with accused 1 to 4 for any endless period of time. After adequately protecting the interests of a fair, efficient and expeditious investigation, the petitioners can be granted regular bail, making it clear that the grant of bail to the petitioners shall not entitle any co-accused to claim regular bail or anticipatory bail. 6. In the result: 1) These applications are allowed. 2) The petitioners shall be released on bail on the following terms and conditions. (a) The petitioners shall not be released from custody on the strength of this order prior to 7.3.2008. The Investigators shall in the B.A.Nos.1074, 1393 & 1420 of 2008 5 meantime make every endeavour to complete the investigation. (b) They shall execute bonds for Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) each with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to be satisfaction of the learned Magistrate. (c) They shall make themselves available for interrogation before the Investigating Officer on all Mondays and Fridays between 10 a.m. and 12 noon for a period of two months from the date of their release and thereafter as and when directed by the Investigating Officer in writing to do so. (d) During the said period of two months, the petitioners shall not enter the Sessions Division of Trichur, without the prior permission of the learned Magistrate, except for the purpose of complying with condition © above. (R. BASANT) Judge tm