Judgment :- 1. This is an application for anticipatory bail by the fifth accused in Crime No. 22/88 of Fort Cochin Police Station. The crime was registered in connection with the death of one Abu, an employee in a cinema theatre 'Cockers'. Prosecution case is that the proprietor of the theatre, who is said to be a film producer and a person of considerable wealth, with the aid of others, including hired killers, did away with Abu during the night of 24-4-1988. Some persons were arrested as suspects and were later released on bail. 2. Shri M.B. Kurup, Senior Advocate appearing for petitioner submits that, Police are on the look out for petitioner, solely with a view to disgrace and harass him, and that even in the report submitted by Police on 19-5-88 no mention was made of petitioner. It was further submitted that petitioner is in no manner involved in the incident leading to Crime No. 22/88, and that he is innocent. Counsel prayed that the case diary may be examined to ascertain, if petitioner is connected with the crime. 3. Public Prosecutor hotly contests the protestations of innocence made by petitioner, and submits that petitioner is the guiding spirit behind the murder of Abu. Public Prosecutor would further say that petitioner is a professional criminal, who has mercenary killers under him. It is also submitted that if petitioner is granted bail, he would use his influence by way of money and muscle to tamper with the evidence. 4. I have perused the Case Diary, as desired by counsel. I wish not to refer to the lurid spectrum or macabre sidelights revealed, lest it should prejudice the trial that is yet to begin: Whatever is stated herein, is not an expression of opinion on merits. 5. I am not persuaded to think that the assertions of petitioner are correct, or that those made by the Public Prosecutor are incorrect. Petitioner, who is referred to by several persons by the honorific'Ustad', is not altogether a stranger to the other accused, or the crime. I say no more. The warning lights flash against grant of anticipatory bail. 6. In considering the question of bail, Court must extent equal consideration to the cause of public justice, as to the cause of the liberty of the accused. Nothing that deters the investigation or hampers public justice, should be done. I say no more. The warning lights flash against grant of anticipatory bail. 6. In considering the question of bail, Court must extent equal consideration to the cause of public justice, as to the cause of the liberty of the accused. Nothing that deters the investigation or hampers public justice, should be done. Bail cannot be granted except for compelling reasons in a serious crime, when investigation is in progress. In Pokar Ram v. State of Rajasthan (AIR 1985 S. C. 969), the Supreme Court indicated the guidelines: "Anticipatory bail to some extent intrudes in the sphere of investigation of crime and the court must be circumspect in exercising such power of a discretionary nature. It must be made distinctly clear that some very compelling circumstances must be made out for granting bail to a person accused of committing murder and that too when the investigation is in progress. If such an order is allowed to stand, faith of public in administration of justice is likely to be considerably shaken". Once again, in Samunder Singh v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (AIR 1987 S.C. 737), the court cautioned against grant of anticipatory bail, disregarding the 'magnitude and seriousness of the matter'. In Shahzad Hasan Khan v. Ishtiaq Hasan Khan (AIR 1987 S.C.1613), once again, the guidelines were stressed: it... court should be satisfied that the accused being enlarged on bail, will not be in a position to tamper with the evidence. When allegations of tampering of evidence are made, it is the duty of the court to satisfy itself whether those allegations have basis, and if the allegations are not found to be concocted, it would not be a proper exercise of jurisdiction in enlarging the accused on bail". In lyyu alias Ashraf v. State of Kerala (1983 KLT 629), Sukumaran J. summed up the law thus: "Personal liberty must certainly be preserved, but certainly not in such a manner as to facilitate.... defeating of public justice and a fair criminal trial should be put an end to." 7. Over zealous attitudes are ill justified. Courts cannot turn the Nelson's eye to changing spectrum of crime pattern. An era of professional and mercenary crimes, has come of age. Crime today is no longer confined, cabined and cribbed to cases of emotional outbursts. It is much more. The writings on the wall cannot be ignored. Over zealous attitudes are ill justified. Courts cannot turn the Nelson's eye to changing spectrum of crime pattern. An era of professional and mercenary crimes, has come of age. Crime today is no longer confined, cabined and cribbed to cases of emotional outbursts. It is much more. The writings on the wall cannot be ignored. Courts must be alive to their onerous responsibilities. Basically, the object to Criminal Law is to suppress criminal enterprise. Law provides safeguards against abuses. But, the salutory provisions, cannot be overplayed so as to bring about a situation, where provisions of law defeat the larger objectives of law. Zeal for liberty, a truly cherished value in a democratic society, cannot obliterate larger considerations from view, nor would it justify a myopic view, taking in only the rights of the criminal defendant. As observed by Bhat J. in Chandra Senan v. State (1983 KLT 916), "the Court cannot take an ivory tower approach". Viewed in the light of these principles, I am of opinion that grant of anticipatory bail to petitioner would impede the cause of public justice. Petition is accordingly dismissed.