The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for establishing a criminal conspiracy, emphasizing the need for an agreement between parties and the inference of the conspiracy's objective from surrounding circumstances and the conduct of the accused.

1. The petitioner is the 1st accused in Crime No.233/2012 of Chombala Police Station, Kozhikode District. The offences alleged against this petitioner and others are under sections 143, 147, 148, 115, 118, 120-B r/w 149 of IPC. The petitioner was arrested in connection with this case on 07.06.2012. Since then he has been in judicial custody.

2. The learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri.Gopalakrishna Kurup and the learned Advocate General have been heard.

3. It is alleged that Mr. T.P. Chandrasekharan, who was a local leader of the C.P.I.(M), along with others, left C.P.I.(M) and formed a new party called 'Revolutionary Marxist Party' (R.M.P). As some persons who originally belonged to C.P.I.(M) left that party and joined R.M.P., the petitioner and other leaders hatched a criminal conspiracy to murder Mr.T.P.Chandrasekharan and for that purpose, preparations were made in pursuance of that conspiracy. According to the prosecution, that conspiracy was hatched in September 2009 from the house of A11 at Mahe and also from Onchiyam Area Committee of C.P.I.(M) situated at Nadapuram Road and for that purpose, according to the prosecution, a team which included A4 to A10, A12 and A13 was arranged. A6 was stated to be the leader of that team. Mr.T.P. Chandrasekharan was murdered on 04.05.2012 at 10.15 p.m. at a place called 'Vallikkad'. Crime No.433/2012 was registered by Vadakara Police with regard to that murder case. When some of the accused in that case were arrested and questioned they were stated to have told about the conspiracy which was hatched in the year 2009. Though the object of that conspiracy could not be achieved, the prosecution contends that this petitioner and other accused persons committed the offence of criminal conspiracy and other offences as mentioned above.

4. The learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that this crime (Crime No.233/2012 of Chombala Police Station) was registered only as dictated or desired by a ruling political party. It is further submitted that this petitioner, who was arrested in connection with the main case (Crime No.433/2012 of Vadakara Police Station), was granted bail by this Court as per Order dated 02.07.2012 in B.A. No:3632/2012 and so further incarceration may not be had.

5. The learned Advocate General would submit that even though the object of the criminal conspiracy of 2009 could not be accomplished, still prosecution can be had for the offence under section 120-B. In order to constitute a criminal conspiracy there must be an agreement between two or more persons, the agreement must relate to doing or causing to be done either an illegal act or an act which is not illegal in itself but is done by illegal means. The existence of the conspiracy and its objective can be inferred from the surrounding circumstances and the conduct of the accused. The essence of a criminal conspiracy is complete when the unlawful combination is framed and that no overt act need be done in furtherance of the conspiracy, and that the object of the combination need not be accomplished, in order to constitute an indictable offence. In support of these submissions, the learned Advocate General relied upon the decisions of the apex Court in Noor Mohammad Mohd. Yusuf Momin V. State of Maharashtra 1970 (1) SCC 696, Yogesh Alias Sachin Jagdish Joshi V. State of Maharashtra (2008) 10 SCC 394 and Chamanlal and Others V. State of Punjab and another (2009) 11 SCC 721. But at the same time the incriminating circumstances must form a chain of events from which a conclusion about the guilt of the accused could be drawn.

6. The learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner does not dispute the fact that an offence of conspiracy is a substantive offence and that it renders mere agreement to commit an offence punishable, even if an offence does not take place pursuant to the illegal agreement. But the learned counsel submits that the petitioner has been arrayed as