IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Bail Appl..No. 1161 of 2008()
1. K.S.RAVI, S/O.SUBBIAH NAICK,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. C.I. OF POLICE, KAYAMKULAM POLICE
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.K.R.SUNIL
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.P.BALACHANDRAN
Dated :06/05/2008
O R D E R
K.P.BALACHANDRAN,J.
-----------------------------------------
B.A.NOs.1161/08,1753/08,1950/08,1985/08,
2193/08 & 2645/08
-----------------------------------------------------
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF MAY, 2008
O R D E R
These are all applications for regular bail filed under
Section 439 Cr.P.C.
2. In B.A.No.1850/08 filed by accused 3 and 4 and in
B.A.No.1950/08 filed by accused 2 and 9, this Court had granted
bail to accused Nos.3, 4 and 9 as they were entitled to statutory
bail as the investigation could not be completed within 90 days
after they were being detained. 1st accused has also been
enlarged on bail granting the benefit of section 167(2) Cr.P.C.
B.A.No.1950/08, in as far as it relates to the 2nd accused remains
to be considered. B.A.No.1161/08 by the 10th accused,
B.A.No.1753/08 by the 5th accused, B.A.No.2193/08 by the 11th
accused, B.A.No.1985/08 by accused 7 and 8 and
B.A.No.2645/08 filed by the 6th accused have also come up for
consideration. It is worthy to note that other than accused 1, 3,
4 and 9 who were entitled to statutory bail, no other accused had
been granted bail and this Court vide common order passed in
B.A.NO.1161/08 & Con. Cases -2-
B.A.1850/08 & 1950/08 dated 28.3.2008 directed the court
below to expedite the trial and to complete the trial before Courts
reopen after mid-summer recess. It is seen from the letter of the
District Judge that the trial Judge has sought for time to dispose
of the case upto 30th June, 2008. But all the same, the direction
of this Court vide order dated 28.3.2008 is there to complete the
trial expeditiously if possible, before the courts re-open after mid
summer recess. In view of the steps taken to dispose of the
cases at the earliest and considering the gravity of the offence
and the gruesome nature of the murder committed, I am not of
the view that such of the accused who are not entitled to
statutory bail can be enlarged on bail at present, especially in
view of the directions given by this Court to the court below to
complete the trial, if possible before re-opening of Courts.
3. In the result, without prejudice to the petitioners
moving for bail afresh, in case the trial court is not able to
dispose of the case before 31.5.2008, I dismiss B.A.No.1950/08
in relation to the 2nd accused and B.A.Nos.1161/08, 1753/08,
2193/08, 1985/08 and 2645/08 filed by such of the accused who
are in custody from out of the 11 accused in the case. The
B.A.NO.1161/08 & Con. Cases -3-
petitioners shall be at liberty to approach the trial court for grant
of bail in case trial is not completed before 31.5.2008 for any
reason whatsoever despite directions of this Court.
K.P.BALACHANDRAN, JUDGE.
dsn