IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Bail Appl No. 471 of 2008()
1. SENTHIL KUMAR,AGED 37,S/O.NADARAJAN
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED THROUGH
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.VINCENT JOSEPH
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
Dated :28/01/2008
O R D E R
R. BASANT, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
B.A.No. 471 of 2008
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 28th day of January, 2008
O R D E R
Second application for regular bail. The petitioner faces
allegations in a crime registered under Sections 302 and 120B
I.P.C. The petitioner is the 9th accused. Altogether there are 11
accused persons. The petitioner and the 10th accused allegedly
entertained animus against the deceased. All three are jaggery
merchants hailing from Theni in Tamil Nadu. The deceased was
earlier an employee of the 10th accused. He later left the 10th
accused and started jaggery business of his own. He was
successful and his success was by treading on the toes of the
petitioner and the 10th accused, who felt jealous of the success in
the business of the petitioner. There was some disputes also
between them.
2. The prosecution alleges that the petitioner and the 10th
accused entered into a conspiracy to liquidate the
deceased. They contacted the 11th accused, who in turn
contracted the 7th accused, who engaged accused 1 to 8 for
B.A.No. 471 of 2008
2
carrying out the mission. The deceased was allegedly taken forcibly in
a car from a crowded bazar. His dead body was found a couple of
days later. Crime was registered. Investigation was conducted. The
Investigators were successful to resolve the mystery of the crime. The
petitioner was arrested on 21.11.2007. He continues in custody from
that date. An earlier application filed by the petitioner was dismissed
as per order dt.7.1.2008.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner is innocent. He, like the deceased, only happened to be a
former employee of the 10th accused. He has unnecessarily been
dragged into the controversy. The petitioner, who has remained in
custody from 21.11.2007, may now be enlarged on bail, prays the
learned counsel.
4. The learned Prosecutor opposes the application. He submits
that the available inputs clearly point to the complicity of the
petitioner. No one has a case that the petitioner or the 10th accused did
actually participate in the objectionable conduct of causing death of the
deceased. But their complicity is graver in degree in as much as they
B.A.No. 471 of 2008
3
have conspired and took the decision to liquidate the deceased by
employing persons, who carried out the mission on behalf of accused 9
and 10. Accused 1 to 8 have questionable criminal antecedents. The
fact that the petitioner did not actually take part in the crime may not in
any way deliver any advantage to the petitioner, submits the learned
Prosecutor. Investigation is not complete. Investigator is taking all
steps to expeditiously complete the investigation. The petitioner may
not be granted regular bail at this stage, submits the learned Prosecutor.
5. 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 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 11.2.2008. The Investigators
B.A.No. 471 of 2008
4
shall, in the meantime, make every endeavour to arrest the co-accused
and complete the investigation.
(R. BASANT)
Judge
tm