Petitioner is the 5th accused in Crime No.184 of 2014 of the Marayamuttam Police station for the offences punishable under Secs.120B, 324, 307 and 302 read with Sec.34 of the Indian Penal Code, Sec.27 of the Arms Act, is in custody from 19.05.2014 and seeks bail. 2. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the application. It is submitted that on 12.05.2014 at about 9.10 p.m., on account of previous enmity of the petitioner and others towards the deceased, himself and another were attacked with sword. It is submitted that the petitioner has conspired with other accused in commission of the crime.
3. Learned counsel submitted that the allegations are not true. It is submitted that the petitioner was taken to custody from his house on 12.05.2014 at about 9.30 p.m. even before a case was registered. Wife of the petitioner filed complaint to various authorities. She filed a complaint in the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Neyyatinkara alleging illegal custody of her husband. Learned magistrate appointed an Advocate commissioner to visit three Police stations. The Advocate Commissioner visited Marayamuttam Police station on 19.05.2014 at 4 p.m. but could not find the petitioner there. Next, he visited Neyyattinkara Police station the same day and found the petitioner in that station at about 5 p.m. The petitioner was produced before the jurisdictional magistrate the same day at about 8.30 p.m. when he complained about police harassment. It is also submitted that though in the First Information Statement given by a person who claimed to have seen the incident presence of the petitioner at the place of occurrence and extorting other accused to kill the deceased is stated, the Police now have no such case.
4. Learned Public Prosecutor in response has submitted that call details of the 1st accused was collected and it is found that there are several calls from the mobile phone of the petitioner to the 1st accused and vice versa. It is also submitted that the case is being investigated by the Circle Inspector whose office is at Neyyattinkara.
5. The question whether the petitioner is involved in the incident or not is to be investigated. The petitioner is in custody only from 19.05.2014. The investigating agency should get breathing time to investigate all aspects of the matter. At this stage, request for bail cannot be allowed.
The application is dismissed without prejudice to the petitioner moving again after the investigation has progressed.
Sd/-
THOMAS P. JOSEPH JUDGE / True Copy / NS P.A. To Judge