7th accused in Chalakkudy Police Station Crime No.1229 of 2017 registered under Sections 364, 384, 302 and 120B read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as “IPC”) seeks pre-arrest bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “Code”).

2. Heard Sri. B. Raman Pillai and Sri. P. Vijaya Bhanu, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri. Suman Chakrawarthy, learned Senior Public Prosecutor appearing for the State and Sri. S. Sreekumar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the defacto complainant/intervenor.

3. I have carefully perused the materials on record and the case diary submitted by the prosecution.

4. On 29.09.2017 at about 11.00 hours in the morning, the defacto complainant (son of deceased Rajeev) appeared before the Sub Inspector of Police, Chalakkudy Police Station and gave a statement that his father went missing and he was not heard of between 8.00 p.m. on 28.09.2017 and 7.45 a.m. on 29.09.2017. It is also mentioned in the first information statement that Rajeev had taken three nutmeg plantations on lease. Deceased used to reside in a house situated in the nutmeg garden taken on lease from Kallingal Thomas. The property is situate at a place called Thavalappara. Deceased contacted his son last on 28.09.2017 night. Thereafter, on the next day morning, the defacto complainant received information from a known autorickshaw driver that latter had seen his father's scooter capsized inside the plantation, by the side of its gate. The defacto complainant went there and found an upturned scooter and also chapels lying scattered, indicating use of force against his father. As he did not find his father, he went to police station and informed. It is specifically stated in the first information statement that the 5th accused Johny and the deceased were engaged in real estate business a couple of years before the incident and later they fell apart. It is the allegation that the 5th accused Johny was bitterly enmical towards his father. Petitioner (7th accused) was also hostile to his father on account of some financial transactions. Deceased had filed petitions before higher police officers and writ petitions before this Court against the 7th accused. In the light of these allegations, police registered a case initially under Section 57 of the Kerala Police Act, 2011 and later, on finding that the defacto complainant's father Rajeev was murdered, police altered the Sections as shown above.

5. In the bail application, the petitioner has contended that he has no connection with the crime. He has been falsely implicated to wreak vengeance nurtured by certain persons. Petitioner is totally innocent of all accusations. He is a lawyer having a standing of 32 years in the Bar and has an impeccable reputation of being an upright lawyer. On account of the professional excellence and integrity, he has been appointed as Special Prosecutor by the State and Central Governments. As a natural consequence, he has several adversaries and at the instance of some deviant elements now he is implicated in the crime.

6. Petitioner admitted that the deceased was a client of his. At that time, the petitioner was in search of a mango orchard in and around Palakkad. Deceased offered to arrange a property for the petitioner as he was in the real estate business. In the meantime, the deceased had obtained Rs.11.5 lakhs from the petitioner as loan. Later, the petitioner came to know that he was cheated and resultantly he submitted a complaint against the deceased before the Superintendent of Police, Aluva on 19.05.2017. On that complaint, the Superintendent of Police directed the Station House Officer, Nedumbassery Police Station to conduct an enquiry. Anticipating arrest, the deceased and his son (defacto complainant) submitted B.A.No.3795 of 2017 before this Court, which was dismissed as there was no basis for their apprehension. It is the contention of the