The court has the discretion to grant or deny bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of the charges, and the evidence against the accused.

This is the third application preferred by the petitioner under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 , seeking regular bail.

2. The petitioner is the third accused in Crime No. 655 of 2023 of Kunnathunadu Police Station, Ernakulam District, which was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 120 B, 364, 302, 201, 212 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code .

3. The prosecution case is that the son of the first accused, (Mr. Ansil Saju,) was murdered by one Mr. Biju on 12.01.2022. The Inspector of Police Kurruppampady Police Station has registered a crime in this regard as Crime No.26 of 2022. Subsequently, the aforesaid Biju was released on bail in Crime No.26 of 2022. On knowing the same, the first accused arranged one Eldhose (deceased in the present case), a hired killer, to murder the said Biju. Even though the said Eldose (deceased in the present case) obtained money and liquor from the first accused, he did not murder the said Biju as undertaken by him and therefore the first accused turned inimical to the said Eldhose. On this enmity, the first and third accused conspired together to murder Eldhose and on 18.08.2023 at 6.00 pm they took Eldhose to a lonely place at Veettoor. The first accused hit his head with a wooden stick and hit on the left side of his head with a stone. The first and second accused committed murder. The third accused, helped them to escape after committing murder and thereby committed the above offence.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor were heard.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had no role in the murder and that even if the prosecution allegations are accepted, only an offence under Sections 201 and 212 of IPC would lie against him. It is also argued that he was arrested on 20.08.2023. Since no overt act is alleged against the petitioner, he is entitled to be enlarged on bail as further detention is not required.

6. The learned Public Prosecutor opposing the bail application filed a report on behalf of the Investigating Officer stating that there is clear evidence for the commission of conspiracy by the petitioner. It is stated that there is sufficient evidence against the petitioner and that his son is also arrayed as the 4 th accused. It is also pointed out that granting bail to the petitioner in a serious offence like this would certainly affect a fair trial.

The earlier applications, namely B.A. Nos.10767/2023 and 97/2024, were rejected by orders of this Court dated 15.12.2023 and 31.01.2024, respectively. After hearing the learned counsel on either side, taking note of the serious charge levelled against the petitioner for having committed criminal conspiracy to commit murder, the evidence in support of the charge against the petitioner, in particular the scientific evidence like CCTV footage, Call Data Records etc., the acts of the petitioner after accused 1 and 2 committed the murder and his role as described in the report, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner, despite the filing of the charge sheet. The apprehension raised in the report, of the likelihood of the petitioner intimidating the witnesses and causing threats to them, appears to be well-founded. I do not find any change in circumstances either.

Accordingly, the application is dismissed.