IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Bail Appl No. 4 of 2008()
1. SENTHIL KUMAR, AGED 37,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.VINCENT JOSEPH
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
Dated :07/01/2008
O R D E R
R. BASANT, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
B.A.No. 4 of 2008
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 7th day of January, 2008
O R D E R
Application for regular bail. The petitioner faces
allegations in a crime registered, inter alia, under Section 302
I.P.C. The petitioner is the 9th accused. Altogether there are 11
accused persons. This court had occasion to consider the facts of
this case in detail when the 10th accused came before this Court
with an application for anticipatory bail. By order dt.14.12.2007
in B.A.No. 7662 of 2007 the said prayer of the 10th accused was
turned down. 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. The crux of the allegations is that the deceased was an
employee under the 10th accused, a jaggery merchant. After
working for some time as employee of the 10th accused, the
deceased wanted to do identical business on his own. The
petitioner/A9 is another jaggery merchant of the locality.
B.A.No. 4 of 2008
2
Accused 9 and 10 entertained animus against the deceased. They
were jealous against the deceased, who was eating into the business,
which accused 9 and 10 were enjoying. They allegedly conspired.
Accused No.9 allegedly engaged accused 1 to 8. The mission was to
liquidate the deceased. He was taken away from a market in a vehicle.
Crime was registered under the caption ‘man missing’ initially. The
dead body of the deceased was traced later. Investigation revealed the
complicity of accused 9 and 10, who had allegedly engaged accused 1
to 8 to carry out the mission. Investigation is in progress. 10th accused
was not arrested. 9th accused continues in custody from 21.11.2007.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner is innocent. The petitioner may now be enlarged on bail,
subject to appropriate terms and conditions. He having remained in
custody from 21.11.2007, it is not necessary to insist on further
incarceration of the petitioner, submits the counsel.
4. The learned Prosecutor opposes the application. Investigation
is not complete. Allegations are serious. Hire lings/mercenaries have
been engaged by the 10th accused in an attempt to liquidate the
deceased. The available indications point to the culpability of the
B.A.No. 4 of 2008
3
petitioner. He may not be enlarged on bail, submits the learned
Prosecutor.
4. Having considered all the relevant inputs, I find merit in the
opposition by the learned Prosecutor. I am satisfied that at this early
stage of investigation, the petitioner is not entitled to be released on
bail. The important co-accused has not been arrested yet. The
Investigators, in a serious crime like this, must be given sufficient time
to complete the investigation, I am satisfied.
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 21.1.2008. The Investigators
shall, in the meantime, make every endeavour to arrest the co-accused
and complete the investigation.
(R. BASANT)
Judge
tm