ORDER : P. Bhavadasan, J. 1. This is an application filed u/s 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking regular bail. Petitioners are the accused Nos. 1 and 2 in RC No. 2(S)/2012/CBI/Tvpm registered for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 201 and 397 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. 2. The dead body of a woman by name Sulaikha was found in a rubber estate. Her throat was found split with a sharp edged weapon, and Crime No. 246 of 2006 of Kunnathunadu Police Station was registered and investigation commenced. Since the investigation by the local police did not yield results, investigation was taken over by the Crime Branch of the State Police as CR No. 263/CR/SII/CBCID/SIG-II, Ernakulam. The Crime Branch, after an elaborate enquiry, being convinced about the innocence of the petitioners, let them free. When things stood so, an Action Council was formed which was headed by the son of the owner of the estate where the body was found and a writ petition was filed by the Council. It was thereafter that the case came to be transferred to the CBI. The said agency enquired into the matter found that the petitioners were responsible for causing the death of the victim and therefore, they were arrayed as accused. 3. The petitioners would point out that they are innocent and have been falsely implicated and infact they have been made scapegoats at the hands of the owner of the estate where the body was found. It is pointed out that the owner of the estate and his son were the primary suspects in the case when the local police was investigating the issue, along with the petitioners. The petitioners pointed out that they were earlier subjected to scientific and forensic tests and were found to be innocent. 4. According to the petitioners, apart from the old materials which were collected by the local police and Crime Branch no new materials have been collected by the CBI. At any rate, the petitioners would point out that they have been in custody from 30/04/2013 onwards. After the arrest their custody was obtained by the CBI and recoveries have been effected. According to them, a good portion of the investigation is over and their continued custody is unnecessary. They therefore seek bail. 5. This application is very vehemently opposed by the CBI. After the arrest their custody was obtained by the CBI and recoveries have been effected. According to them, a good portion of the investigation is over and their continued custody is unnecessary. They therefore seek bail. 5. This application is very vehemently opposed by the CBI. It is pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the CBI that the petitioners are accused of having committed murder of a helpless lady who happened to watch the illicit relationship of one of the accused with a woman in the estate and when she declared that she would make the issue public, the first and second accused caught hold of her and with the butcher's knife slit her throat. It is pointed out that both the accused are butchers by profession and the materials collected during the investigation by the CBI show their complicity. The offences, according to the learned counsel for the CBI are of grave and serious nature. It was after much effort that the CBI could gather materials showing the involvement of the accused persons. Merely because the accused persons have been in custody from 30/04/2013 onwards by itself is not a ground to release them on bail especially when the act committed by them is so gruesome and horrendous, and they deserve no leniency. Learned counsel referred to the decisions of the Apex Court in this regard. It was pointed out by the learned counsel for the CBI that if the petitioners are released on bail, they are likely to influence the witnesses and that would make the trial a mockery. According to the learned counsel, the petitioners have to remain in custody till the trial is over. 6. After having heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor and having perused the records made available, the claim of the petitioners that they are totally innocent and have been falsely implicated cannot be readily accepted. The claim of the petitioners that no new materials have been collected by the investigating agency does not appear to be correct. The claim of the petitioners that no new materials have been collected by the investigating agency does not appear to be correct. Even though the petitioners had undergone scientific and forensic tests on earlier occasion, it is seen from the counter-affidavit filed by the CBI that no report could be obtained with regard to the tests so conducted since the person who conducted the tests left the office and that necessitated the conduct of the fresh tests and there are materials to show that the petitioners may be involved. 7. It is no doubt true that the offences are of grave and serious nature resulting in the death of a helpless woman. As per the prosecution allegation, the victim happened to see the illicit relationship between one of the petitioners and another woman and she threatened to make it public and in order to silence her, she was murdered by the petitioners. Of course the petitioners have a different version altogether. According to them they have not committed the murder of the woman and it was infact done by the owner of the estate. 8. As of now, the materials are against the petitioners. But that does not mean that they will have to languish in custody for ever. A good part of the investigation seems to have been completed and the claim of the counsel for the CBI that they should not be granted bail till the trial is over cannot be accepted. Unless there are compelling reasons to show that releasing them on bail would be a threat to the society or will affect the trial or that they are likely to abscond, it may not be proper to continue their custody. The learned counsel for the CBI is right in his submission that merely because the petitioners have been in custody for a while is itself not a ground to grant bail. Even if they are released on bail, it is possible for the Court to impose such conditions so as to ensure that they are available for trial. Conditions can also be imposed so as to ensure that the witnesses are not contacted by the accused persons. The plea that he offences are gruesome and horrendous and therefore bail should not be granted may not sound very attractive. Every murder is horrendous and cruel and this case is no exception. Conditions can also be imposed so as to ensure that the witnesses are not contacted by the accused persons. The plea that he offences are gruesome and horrendous and therefore bail should not be granted may not sound very attractive. Every murder is horrendous and cruel and this case is no exception. As already noticed, unless there are very compelling reasons, it may not be proper nor will it be justified to keep the petitioners in custody. After having given anxious consideration to the various aspects and to the apprehension expressed by the investigating agency, it is felt that the petitioners have been in custody for long enough and their further custody is unnecessary. As regards the apprehensions expressed by the investigating agency are concerned, adequate conditions can be imposed to ensure that the petitioners are available for trial and they do not influence the witnesses. In the result, this application is allowed follows: (i) Petitioners shall be released on bail on each of them executing a bond for a sum of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the Court concerned. (ii) The Court concerned may ensure the identity of the sureties and also the veracity of the tax receipts that are sought to be produced at the time of executing the bond. (iii) Petitioners shall appear before the Investigating Officer on every Monday and Friday between 9 a.m. and 11 a.m. until further orders. (iv) Petitioners shall surrender their passports, if any, before the Court concerned, and if they do not possess the same, affidavit to that effect shall be filed. (v) Petitioners shall not leave the State of Kerala without the prior permission of the Court concerned. (vi) Petitioners shall not either directly or indirectly get in touch or try to get in touch with the witnesses. (vii) Petitioners shall not tamper or attempt to tamper with the evidence or influence or try to influence the witnesses. (viii) The petitioners shall not enter Ernakulam District except for complying with condition No. (iii) for a period of six months from the date of order. (ix) if any of the conditions is violated, bail granted to the petitioners shall stand cancelled, and the Court concerned may take such steps as are available to it in law.