High Court Kerala High Court

K.K.Poulose @ Samkutty vs State Of Kerala on 5 December, 2007

Kerala High Court
K.K.Poulose @ Samkutty vs State Of Kerala on 5 December, 2007
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Bail Appl No. 7468 of 2007()


1. K.K.POULOSE @ SAMKUTTY,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.P.S.SREEDHARAN PILLAI

                For Respondent  :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT

 Dated :05/12/2007

 O R D E R
                           R.BASANT, J.
                        ----------------------
                        B.A.No.7468 of 2007
                    ----------------------------------------
           Dated this the 5th day of December 2007

                               O R D E R

Application for regular bail. The petitioner faces

allegations under Section 302 I.P.C. He is alleged to have

caused the death of his father’s brother. There were bitter

property disputes between the deceased on the one side and the

petitioner’s father on the other. Civil litigation was also pending.

The deceased was found lying dead with injuries in his

residential premises. A little earlier, the petitioner had gone

there. There used to be disputes between the deceased and the

petitioner herein. The petitioner had always wanted the

deceased to settle the disputes; but the deceased was not

amenable to such requests. On the date in question also, the

petitioner had allegedly gone to the house of the deceased to

request him to settle the disputes. An incident took place there

and in the course of that incident, the deceased was allegedly

beaten to death with a pipe by the petitioner. The petitioner

went away from the scene of the crime. The incident took place

on 6/10/2007. The F.I statement was registered later on the

B.A.No.7468/07 2

same day. The petitioner was arrested on 7/10/2007. The

petitioner’s culpable involvement is mentioned in the F.I

statement itself. He continues in custody from that date.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

even if the entire allegations were accepted, it must be noted

that the mission of the petitioner when he proceeded to the

house of the deceased was only to settle the disputes. He was

not armed at all. Even the allegation is only that a pipe which

was found in the premises of the deceased was made use of to

inflict the injury on the deceased. A period of about two months

has already elapsed. The petitioner may in these circumstances

be granted regular bail, prays the learned counsel for the

petitioner.

3. The learned Public Prosecutor opposes the

application. All the available indications point to the complicity

of the petitioner. Investigation is not complete. Investigators in

a serious crime like this are certainly entitled to further time to

complete the investigation, prays the learned Public Prosecutor.

4. Having considered all the relevant inputs, I find merit

in the opposition by the learned Public Prosecutor. I agree with

B.A.No.7468/07 3

the learned Public Prosecutor that the investigators in a serious

crime like this are certainly entitled to further time to complete

the investigation

5. In the result, this petition is dismissed. However, I

may hasten to observe that the petitioner shall be at liberty to

move this court for bail again at later stages of the investigation

not, at any rate, prior to 19/12/2007. The investigating officer

shall, in the meantime, make every endeavour to complete the

investigation.



                                             (R.BASANT, JUDGE)
jsr

            // True Copy//      PA to Judge

B.A.No.7468/07    4

B.A.No.7468/07    5

       R.BASANT, J.




         CRL.M.CNo.




            ORDER




21ST DAY OF MAY2007