IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT MONDAY, THE 4TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 15TH MAGHA 1929 Bail Appl..No. 604 of 2008(P) ----------------------------- CRIME NO. 393/07 OF VENGARA POLICE STATION CMP.4454/2007 of J.M.F.C.,MALAPPURAM .................... PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.2 ---------------------------------------- PRAKASH, S/O B.GANAPATHY(LATE), KUMBASI VILLAGE, KUNTHAPURAM, UDUPPI. BY ADV. SRI.SUNNY MATHEW RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT ------------------------ STATE OF KERALA, THROUGH THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VENGARA POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. S.U. NAZAR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - B.A.No. 604 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 4th day of February, 2008 O R D E R Second application for regular bail. The petitioner is the second accused. His earlier application for regular bail was dismissed by this Court by order dt. 14.1.00 in B.A.No. 135 of 2008. Facts have been adverted to in detail in that order. This order must be read in continuation of that order. I am not hence adverting to facts in any greater detail in this order. 2. A certain person was abducted. Ransom was demanded by those, who were keeping him. The Kerala police with the help of Karnataka police succeeded in locating the detenu at the place where he was kept under detention. At the relevant time the petitioner, along with two others, were available in the premises, where the victim was held in captivity. In short, at the time when the victim was recovered and saved, the petitioner was one of those who was keeping him in custody. According to the petitioner he is innocent. He was only directed by his B.A.No. 604 of 2008 2 employer/A5 to feed the detenu, which command he was observing and complying. More than this even according to the prosecution case he has no role in the detention of the victim. The petitioner has remained in custody from 6.12.2007. He may now be enlarged on bail, prays the learned counsel. 3. The learned Prosecutor opposes the application. Altogether eight persons have already been arrested. All of them remain in custody. The investigators have not been able to trace the co-accused so far. They need some further time to complete the investigation. The petitioner is, even according to the prosecution, not the brain which planned the abduction, but the petitioner had a crucial role to play in actually keeping the victim under captivity. In any view of the matter, the petitioner may not be granted bail now, submits the Prosecutor. 4. Having considered all the relevant inputs, notwithstanding the fact that this is a second application and I have observed in the order in the first application that the petitioner can move this court for bail again, not at any rate prior to 21.1.2008, I am satisfied that the petitioner does not deserve to be enlarged on bail even now. In the B.A.No. 604 of 2008 3 nature of the crime and considering its seriousness and present stage of investigation, I am in agreement with the learned Prosecutor that the Investigators, in a serious crime like this, must be given sufficient time to complete the investigation. 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 18.2.2008. I need only mention that I expect the Investigators to positively complete the investigation by that date. (R. BASANT) Judge tm