KARAYI CHANDRASEKHARAN Vs. INSPECTOR OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) UNDAUNTED by the failure to get bail on earlier occasions, accused Nos.7 and 8 in S.C. No.405 of 2012 on the file of IV Additional Sessions Judge, Ernakulam have again approached this court seeking bail.

(2.) THIS court had occasion to consider a similar application filed by the petitioners as B.A. 6468 of 2012 and that application was dismissed by an elaborate order dated 28.9.2012. In the said order the facts have been narrated in detail and the reasons for denying bail to the petitioners at that particular stage are also available from the said order. It is therefore unnecessary to traverse the same grounds again.

(3.) SHRI .P.Chandrasekhara Pillai, learned counsel appearing for the C.B.I., on the other hand contended that the contention based on Section 167(2)(a)(ii) Cr.P.C. has no legs to stand on in the light of the decision reported in Dinesh Dalmia v. C.B.I. (AIR 2008 SC 78). As per the principle laid down in the said decision, the learned counsel went on to contend that the mere fact that police custody is given during further investigation does not wipe away the final report already filed and after the police custody on arrest during further investigation, though may be under Section 167, his further remand can be treated only under Section 309 Cr.P.C. and if that be so, the claim based on statutory bail has necessarily to fail. As regards the other contention, learned counsel went on to point out that though bail is the rule, there are exceptions to the said rule and the present case is one which falls under one of such exceptions. Relying on the decisions reported in Abdulla Kunhi v. C.B.I. (2010(4) KHC 626) and Ash Mohammad v. Shiv Raj Singh ((2012) 4 Crimes 144), learned counsel went on to point out that in these decisions the principle regarding granting of bail has been elaborately considered and it has been held that the nature of the offence, the manner in which the offence is committed, the possibility of influencing the witnesses etc., have a bearing while considering whether bail is to be granted to an accused on not. Applying the principle in the above decisions, the present case falls under the category of one of those cases where bail is necessarily to be denied to the petitioners since if released on bail, it is likely that the petitioners may influence the witnesses and make the trial a mockery.