IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Bail Appl..No. 3149 of 2010()
1. SUBASH.M., AGED 31 YEARS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent
2. DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
For Petitioner :SRI.B.RAMAN PILLAI
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MRS. Justice K.HEMA
Dated :28/05/2010
O R D E R
K. HEMA, J.
---------------------------------------------------
B.A. No. 3149 of 2010
---------------------------------------------------
Dated this 28th day of May, 2010.
ORDER
Petition for bail.
2. The alleged offences are under Sections 302, 392 and 201
read with Sec.34 IPC. According to prosecution, one Ajas was
found missing from 17.5.2010 and his father made a complaint
and a case was registered at Kothmangalam Police Station under
the caption “man missing”. Investigation was conducted and the
case was transferred to CBCID(H.H.W.II) and, during investigation,
petitioners (A1) and his wife (A2) were arrested on 30.3.2010. On
investigation, it was revealed that Ajas had gone to the house of
petitioners with Rs.5 lakhs to double the currency but petitioners,
in furtherance of common intention, took away the money and
gave poison to him. Since, he did not die, he was chopped to
death. An attempt was was made to set fire to his body after
taking it to the first floor by pouring kerosene. But, fearing that the
neighbours would come to know after putting off fire, the body was
taken to Idukki in a car. Since the body could not be disposed of it
[B.A.no.3149/2010] 2
was taken to Kothamangalam and buried at Kothamangalam.
3.Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that the
prosecution developed a story which is not even known to
accused. The dead body was recovered from the property of
another person and petitioners are innocent. The 2nd accused is
already released on bail. Hence, petitioner, who is in custody for
the past 60 days, may be released on bail, it is submitted.
4. This petition is strongly opposed. Learned Public
Prosecutor submitted that the incident happened on 17.5.2009,
but It was only after a long time that petitioners could be arrested
and the manner in which the incident happened was revealed to
the police. Petitioner is involved in another case also and he was
on bail .But he did not comply with the condition imposed. The
investigation is in progress and several witnesses have to be
questioned. This is a case in which murder was committed in
secrecy and hence, it is difficult to collect evidence. Hence, if
petitioner is granted bail at this stage, it will affect investigation, it
is submitted.
5. On hearing both sides and on considering the facts and
circumstances of the case, the stage of investigation and the
nature of investigation required, I am satisfied that it is not proper
[B.A.no.3149/2010] 3
to grant bail at this stage. Granting bail to petitioner’s wife does
not persuade me to grant bail to petitioner taking into
consideration the alleged nature of complicity of petitioner in the
offence.
Petition is dismissed.
K. HEMA, JUDGE.
Krs.