IMPORTANT POINT
The period of custody is a relevant factor for considering the entitlement for bail. But such consideration cannot be made in isolation, divested of the other relevant facts and circumstances.

ORDER :

The State of Kerala is assailing Annexure A order of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Njarakkal, granting bail to accused Nos.1 to 4 in Crime No. 92 of 2020 (ATS PS Cr.31/2020/ATS) of Munambam Police Station. The brief facts, necessary for considering the challenge, are as follows:-

On 05.03.2020, the Inspector of Police, Munambam Police Station found accused Nos. 1 to 8 loitering outside a homestay on the Munambam-Cherai Beach Road under suspicious circumstances. The accused were taken into custody and their room and its premises searched, resulting in recovery of arms from the car of the 8th accused parked outside the homestay. On questioning the accused, it was revealed that the 9th accused, along with accused 8, 10 and others, had planned the murder of one Anas of Perumbavoor, with whom accused No.9 had rivalry and for that purpose, had brought down accused 1 to 7. Crime No. 92 of 2020 was thereupon registered at the Munambam Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 115, 118, 120B and 302 of IPC and Section 5(1) (a) read with 27(1) of the Arms Act. The accused were produced before the jurisdictional Magistrate Court and remanded to custody on 05.03.2020. Accused 9 and 10 were arrested on 21.04.2020 and 24.04.2020 respectively. Meanwhile, accused No.5 was granted bail on 16.3.2020 and accused No.6, on 25.03.2020. The investigating officer submitted final report on 01.05.2020. A report, pointing out the need for further investigation into the involvement and role of the co-conspirators named in the final report, was filed on 09.05.2020. The impugned order, granting bail to accused 1 to 4, was issued on 04.06.2020. The learned Magistrate granted bail on the premise that, the accused having been arrested on 05.03.2020 and the final report submitted on 01.05.2020, further remand of the accused would amount to punishment.

2. Heard Sri. Suman Chakravarthy, learned Senior Public Prosecutor and Sri B. Raman Pillai, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents/accused 1 to 4.

3. The learned Senior Public Prosecutor assailed Annexure A order on the following grounds:

(i) Accused Nos.1 to 4 are history sheeters involved in heinous crimes registered at various Police Stations in Tamil Nadu. The criminal antecedents of the accused or the possibility of their absconding after being enlarged on bail, was not taken into consideration.

(ii) Applications for bail submitted by accused 1 to 4 were dismissed by the Sessions Court under Annexure B and C orders dated 08.04.2020 and 28.04.2020. Bail application of the 10th accused was dismissed by this Court under Annexure D order dated 02.06.2020. Dismissal of the bail applications by the Sessions Court and the High Court was not taken into account.

(iii) The fact that names of the proposed accused was stated in the final report and that further investigation was being conducted into their role in the conspiracy was also not considered.

4. Learned Senior Public Prosecutor relied on the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar @ Polia [2020 AIAR (Criminal) 346], Neeru Yadav v. State of U.P., [(2016) 15 SCC 422], State of Bihar v. Rajballav Prasad [(2017) 2 SCC 178] to buttress his contention that bail should not be granted mechanically and non-consideration of crucial aspects would render an order granting bail illegal.

5. The learned Senior Counsel contended that the State is guilty of suppression of the material fact that, the 9th accused, the alleged kingpin, had obtained bail from the Magistrate Court on 05.05.2020 and the challenge against that order was repelled by the Sessions Court by Annexure R1 order. The learned Senior Counsel highlighted the fact that all other accused, of whom 5 to 7 are identically placed, were granted bail. It is contended that the maximum punishment prescribed for the offences alleged is imprisonment up to ten years, which is the relevant factor to be considered, rather than the antecedents of the accused. Th