STATE Vs. SADANADAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondent Sadanandan is the second accused in Crime No. 809 of 1981 of the Ernakulam Central Police Station, a case registered in connection with the murder of one Majeendran. The prosecution case as disclosed from the records is that the respondent entertained enmity towards the deceased on account of business rivalry. He entered into an arrangement with the first accused Rajan, an employee under him for the murder of Majeendran and allowed him the use of the revolver, for which he had a licence Rajan went to the house of Majeendran early in the morning of 9-10-1981, managed to get Majeendran at the front or the house and shot at him. Majeendran died shortly afterwards while he was awaiting treatment in the Medical Trust Hospital at Ernakulam. After the occurrence Rajan as also the respondent left Ernakulam and were absconding. The respondent later on created documents so as to make it appear that he lost the revolver before the occurrence in the case. He was arrested from a hotel in Madras on 26-10-1981 and was in police custody till 16-11-1981 and has been in judicial custody thereafter. He moved for bail before the Sessions Judge, Ernakulam. The petition was opposed by the State mainly on the ground that the investigation was not over and that in case he be released on bail he would wield his influence to shelter the first accused and prevent his apprehension by the police. The learned Sessions Judge while disposing of the petition observed that though the respondent had been in custody ever since 26-10-1981 the prosecution had not been able to apprehend the first accused and that it would not be fair to the petitioner to keep him indefinitely in jail till such time as the investigating authorities find it possible to apprehend the first accused who is the actual assailant. The Court therefore directed the release of the respondent on bail on or after 3-12-1981 on his executing a bond for Rs. 20,000/- with two solvent sureties each for a like amount to the satisfaction of the Judicial Magistrate of the Second Class, Ernakulam, and on his surrendering the current passport held by the petitioner until further orders. The respondent was also directed not to leave the limits of the Cochin Corporation without prior sanction of the Court, that he should report before the Commissioner of Police every day until further orders and that he should not in any way interfere with the investigation of the case or influence the witnesses for the prosecution in any manner whatsoever.

(2.) The present petition was filed by the State to quash the above order granting bail. The main contention of the petitioner State is that in the special circumstances of the case bail should not have been granted to the respondent. The prosecution is mainly relying on circumstantial evidence. Documents to prove the relevant circumstances are to be got at and verified by the investigating agency. More persons who are acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case have to be questioned, the first accused who is at large has to be apprehended and the revolver used for the commission of the offence has to be recovered. The accused being a wealthy businessman having business connections in several places in and outside the State wields considerable influence and his being at large would impede and interfere with the course of investigation Ia the special circumstances of the case investigation could not be completed within the time allowed by the learned Sessions Judge. It is therefore only proper that the order granting bail is set aside.

(3.) In the counter affidavit filed by the respondent he denied that he had any business association with Majeendran or any rivalry on account of financial transactions. He would aver that the first accused is a stranger to him and the revolver alleged to have been used for the murder never belonged to him. He had been in police custody till 16-11-1981 in violation of the provisions contained in S.167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and thereafter in judicial custody. In the absence of a definite averment that the respondent would not make himself available for the trial or that he would influence any witness or that he would tamper with any evidence or that he would misuse his freedom in case he is released on bail, no interference with the order granting bail is called for.