IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN THURSDAY, THE 17TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 26TH KARTHIKA 1933 Bail Appl..No. 9130 of 2011 CRIME NO.988 OF 2011 OF NEDUPUZHA POLICE STATION, THRISSUR. PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS.5, 6, 8 AND 7: --------------------------------------- 1. JOSE @ KUNJU JOSE, S/O.THOMAS KUTTY, MANIPARAMBIL VEEDU, P.O.VADOOKARA, KOORKANCHERY VILLAGE, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 2. RAKESH, S/O.KRISHNANKUTTY, THOPPIL VEEDU, P.O.VADOOKARA, KOORKANCHERY VILLAGE, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 3. SHAJI, S/O.GEORGE, CHERUPULLI VEEDU, P.O.VADOOKARA, KOORKANCHERY VILLAGE, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 4. RAJESH, S/O.KRISHNANKUTTY, THOPPIL VEEDU, P.O.VADOOKARA, KOORKANCHERY VILLAGE, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.D.ANIL KUMAR RESPONDENT: COMPLAINANT -------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.R.RANJITH THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------ Bail Appl. NO. 9130 OF 2011 ------------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 17th day of November, 2011 O R D E R This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioners are respectively accused Nos.5, 6, 8 and 7 in Crime No.988 of 2011 of Nedupuzha Police Station, Thrissur District. 2. The offences alleged against the accused are under Sections 120B and 307 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The prosecution case is the following: Sreenarayana Samajam runs a crematorium at Vadookkara near Thrissur. Formerly, cremation was being done in the traditional way. Recently, the method of cremation was changed and the cremation is being made by using liquefied petroleum gas. Disputes arose between members of Sreenarayana Samajam and the public and also among the members of the Samajam itself as to the number of dead bodies to be cremated and the pollution that would be caused in the locality. BAIL APPL. NO. 9130 OF 2011 :: 2 :: This led to suits before the civil court. Interim orders were passed by the Court. Still, peace could not be maintained in the locality. A civil police officer was deputed for law and order duty at the crematorium. 4. On 25.10.2011 at about 3 P.M., while the Secretary of the Samajam (Sivadasan) was coming out of the crematorium, the first accused attempted to serve a notice on him. While the attention of Sivadasan was on the notice, the first accused stabbed him. Sivadasan fell down. The defacto complainant and others took him to the hospital. 5. Even in the First Information Statement, the defacto complainant stated that the first accused stabbed Sivadasan as directed and instigated by the other accused. Immediately after stabbing, the civil police officer on duty came outside the gate hearing the hue and cry and caught hold of the first accused and seized the knife with which the offence was committed. The first accused was taken to the police station and he was arrested. 6. Investigation revealed that the first accused stabbed BAIL APPL. NO. 9130 OF 2011 :: 3 :: Sivadasan as a result of the conspiracy among the accused persons. The accused persons made a detailed plan to commit the murder of Sivadasan. It is alleged that the first accused undertook the work and he waited outside the gate for Sivadasan to come out. 7. Investigation revealed the complicity of the petitioners in the offence. The investigation is in progress. The victim was in the intensive care unit for several days. In a case of this nature, the petitioners are not entitled to the discretionary relief under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the petitioners are involved in another crime as well. Custodial interrogation of the petitioners may be required in the case. If anticipatory bail is granted to the petitioners, it would adversely affect the proper and smooth investigation of the case. In the facts and circumstances, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners. For the aforesaid reasons, the Bail Application is dismissed. (K.T.SANKARAN) Judge ahz/