Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 876 (KER)

Muhammed Thajuddin v. State of Kerala

2014-10-30

ALEXANDER THOMAS

body2014
JUDGMENT ALEXANDER THOMAS, J. 1. The petitioner herein, who is accused No. 8 in Crime No. 676 of 2009 of Kasargode Police Station registered for offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 448, 354, 324, 364(A), 302 read with Section 149 of IPC, has filed this application seeking anticipatory bail, by invoking the jurisdiction conferred under Section 438 of the Cr. P.C. apprehending arrest in the said crime. The allegations raised in the aforementioned crime registered on 30.12.2009 are that on 30.12.2009, at 12.00 Hours, the accused viz. Patel Naufal, Yasin, Risal and 12 others, who were identifiable, had formed themselves into an unlawful assembly and trespassed into the rental quarters of the complainant (Gafoor) at Perumbala Road, Nainmarmoola, Kasaba gramam, Kasargode with deadly weapons and they caught hold of the wife of the complainant, thereby outraged her modesty and inflicted injuries to the complainant's brother, Haneefa, by assaulting with deadly weapons and kidnapped Dawood, the younger brother of the complainant, in a Maruti car. That the accused persons carried the said Dawood to different places and inflicted him injuries, which resulted in the death of Dawood, etc. During the course of the investigation, other offences under Sections 323, 120B and 212 of PIC were added. Annexure-A is the FIR in the above said crime and it is averred that the petitioner is not named as an accused in the FIR and that there is no reference about the petitioner in the first information statement or first information report. Further it is averred that during the inquest held on the next day, viz. 31.12.2009, the detailed statement of the first informant, Gafoor, was recorded and the statements of two other witnesses were also recorded and that there is no reference about the petitioner anywhere in Annexure-C inquest report dated 31.12.2009. According to the petitioner, the non-mentioning of his name in Annexure-A FIR and Annexure-C inquest report assumes importance in this case. 31.12.2009, the detailed statement of the first informant, Gafoor, was recorded and the statements of two other witnesses were also recorded and that there is no reference about the petitioner anywhere in Annexure-C inquest report dated 31.12.2009. According to the petitioner, the non-mentioning of his name in Annexure-A FIR and Annexure-C inquest report assumes importance in this case. The aspects in this regard projected in the application are as follows:- That the residence of the first informant, Gafoor, the deceased Dawood, (who is the first informant Gafoor's brother) and their parents and their siblings, is just opposite to the house of the petitioner, where he was born and brought up and that only a Panchayat road is between the two and that the petitioner was intimately known to the first informant, Gafoor, deceased Dawood and other members of the family from his childhood and that the members of the two families are very close and friendly and that the petitioner and the deceased Dawood were thick friends until the death of Dawood and that if the petitioner was present anywhere near the scene of occurrence and if the petitioner had any role, then the first informant, Gafoor, who is said to be the person, who has allegedly witnessed the incident in question, could have certainly noted the involvement of the petitioner, who is known to the first informant from child hood days and that the petitioner would have been named by the first informant, Gafoor, in Annexure-A FI statement dated 31.12.2009, or at least in the detailed statement given by the first informant, Gafoor, incorporated in the Annexure-C inquest report. The petitioner was subsequently arrayed as accused No. 8 in the aforementioned crime on the basis of a report of the investigating officer made on 6.1.2010. 2. The gist of allegations in the first information statement is that about one and-a-half month prior to the date of the incident, viz. 30.12.2009, the above said Dawood (brother of the first informant, Gafoor) robbed an amount of Rs. 16.3 lakhs from one Muhammed, which was said to be the proceeds of hawala transaction of one Faizal Patel, who is the brother of accused No. 1 (Patel Naufal) and the said hawala money was entrusted with the said Muhammed for distribution and that the above said money that was robbed by Dawood from Muhammed, was entrusted with the said Muhammed for distribution. That a settlement talk was arranged in the rented quarters of the first informant Gafoor (Dawood's brother) on 30.12.2009 to settle the disputes relating to the above amount robbed by Dawood. For this, Dawood and his another brother, Muhammed Haneefa had come to the quarters of Dawood's brother (Gafoor, first informant) and by about 12.30 p.m., three persons named in the FIR and identifiable 12 others trespassed into the quarters and one of them attacked Muhammed Haneefa by inflicting a cut injury on his head and some others caught hold of the hands of the wife of the first informant Gafoor and that her dress was torn and then assaulted Dawood and forcibly took Dawood in a Maruthi Swift car and drove away him and other assailants left the place in two cars and by about 3.30 p.m. somebody contacted the first informant Gafoor over phone and informed him that a dead body has been brought to Poinachi Century Hospital by three persons and they escaped after leaving the dead body at the hospital, etc. and the first informant, Gafoor went to that hospital and found that it is the dead body of his brother, Dawood, etc. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that he has been falsely implicated as an accused in the aforementioned crime only due to the rivalry of one Basheer, who is said to be another brother of the deceased Dawood and that the said Basheer has a bad character with criminal back ground and was having very close connection with then Circle Inspector of Police, Kasargode, as the said Basheer was acting as his informant and that a few days prior to the incident, the petitioner and his brother had a skirmish with the said Basheer for the reason that the said Basheer had misbehaved towards the sister of the petitioner. That the sister of the petitioner is married to a relative of accused No.1 and that it is presumably on account of these aspects, that the petitioner has been falsely arrayed as an accused (A8) in the above said crime. That the sister of the petitioner is married to a relative of accused No.1 and that it is presumably on account of these aspects, that the petitioner has been falsely arrayed as an accused (A8) in the above said crime. It is further averred that the petitioner has been working in Gulf countries from July 2010 and that now he has returned for good on 2.7.2014 and that apprehending arrest in connection with the above said crime and consequent detention and torture, the petitioner had filed application for anticipatory bail before the Sessions Court, Kasargode, as Crl. M.P. 2776 of 2014, which has been dismissed as per Annexure B order dated 23.7.2014 by the said Sessions Court. It is in the back ground of the aforementioned facts and circumstances that the petitioner has instituted this application by invoking the remedy conferred under Section 438 of the Cr. P.C. for the relief of pre-arrest bail. 4. The petitioner urges that he is innocent of all the allegations and he has been falsely implicated as accused. One of the main submissions made on behalf of the petitioner is that the deceased Dawood, his brother, the first informant Gafoor and all other family members of Gafoor and Dawood intimately knew the petitioner, his name and other details from his childhood as he is living in the immediate vicinity. That the specific case of the first informant in Annexure A is that three named persons and 12 other identifiable persons are the persons, who had come to his quarters and had indulged in the aforementioned offences on the fateful day and that if the petitioner was actually present among one of such persons, who had entered the quarters of the first informant Gafoor, then certainly the first informant could have specifically named the petitioner herein also in the first information statement given on 30.12.2009 or at least he would have named the petitioner in the detailed statement given by the first informant Gafoor, in Annexure C inquest report prepared on the next day (viz. 31.12.2009) and that therefore the omission of the name of the petitioner in the initial stage of registration of the crime as per Annexure-A FIR, assumes great significance and importance and that the only reasonable inference from the above facts and the omission of his name in the FIR is that the petitioner was not among the assailants on the day of the alleged incident and that he is falsely arrayed as accused on later stage on extraneous consideration at the instance of Basheer (deceased Dawood's brother) as stated earlier. It is further urged that in the very nature of the allegations there is nothing incriminating to be recovered at the instance of the petitioner and in the circumstances, the custody or custodial interrogation of the petitioner is unwarranted and unnecessary. That the petitioner has absolutely no information with him about the alleged incidents to be passed on to the Police even if he is detained and that he apprehends torture, if he is subjected to custodial detention, etc. 5. The respondent-Investigating Officer has filed a detailed statement dated 19.9.2014 in this application. It is stated therein that during the course of the investigation, the accused persons were identified as (1) K.S. Noufal [arrested on 4.2.2010], (2) K.S. Abdul Risal [absconding], (3) Muhammed Ashraf Ali @ Achu [absconding] (4) P.M. Abdul Malik [arrested on 4.2.2010], (5) K.A. Yasin [arrested on 4.2.2010], (6) Muhammed Mushri Moideen [arrested on 4.2.2010], (7) Aboobakar Siddiq @ Munna [arrested on 27.09.2010] (8) Muhammed Thajuddin @ Taju [absconding], (9) Muhammed Faizal [absconding], (10) Ahammed Kabeer C.A. [arrested on 5.1.2010], (11) M. Najimuddin [arrested on 5.1.2010], and (12) A.L. Faizal [arrested on 11.8.2010]. It is thus stated that the 4 accused including the petitioner, amongst the 12 accused named therein are still absconding. The said absconding are K.S. Abdul Risal, Muhammed Ashraf Ali @ Achu, Muhammed Thajuddin @ Thaju, Muhamed Faizal and the petitioner. It is further stated therein that during the course of the investigation, it is revealed that while disbursing the hawala money of Pattel brothers by one Ahammed, the deceased Dawood had robbed Rs. The said absconding are K.S. Abdul Risal, Muhammed Ashraf Ali @ Achu, Muhammed Thajuddin @ Thaju, Muhamed Faizal and the petitioner. It is further stated therein that during the course of the investigation, it is revealed that while disbursing the hawala money of Pattel brothers by one Ahammed, the deceased Dawood had robbed Rs. 16,23,500/- from the motor cycle of Ahammed on 5.1 1.2009, and this incident had ignited the enmity of the accused to Dawood and with an intention to wreak vengeance with him, they schemed a plan to annihilate Dawood, as a result of which, the accused persons had trespassed into the rental quarters of the first informant on 30.12.2009 at 12.30 Hrs. and assaulted his brother Dawood and kidnapped him in a car to a place near Thalangara and that he was brutally assaulted and murdered and had taken dead body of Dawood to Century Hospital Poinachi, etc. It is further stated that the four vehicles involved in the case were seized and produced before the court, which were used to kidnap the deceased Dawood and that it is revealed that 12 accused were involved in this crime, out of which, eight of them have been arrested and the aforementioned four accused persons including the petitioner could not be arrested as they are absconding. That the petitioner was earlier in the Gulf for the last five years and that the remaining three absconding accused are now in Gulf country and that Look Out Circulars (LOC) have been issued against these accused persons to trace them. It is further stated that the bail application is opposed on the following among other grounds:- "(i) During the course of investigation, it is revealed that the body of the deceased Davood was brought to the Century Hospital, Poinachi by the accused persons and made a false representation to the hospital authorities that deceased Davood fell in well and sustained injury seriously. Believing the version of the accused to be true the hospital authorities attended the body and in the mean time the accused persons disappeared from the premises of the hospital. The Investigating Team reasonably believes that the petitioner was also one among the persons who took the body of Davood to the hospital at Poinachi for which the identification of the petitioner Mr. Thajudeen by the hospital doctors is highly essential for the purpose of investigation. The Investigating Team reasonably believes that the petitioner was also one among the persons who took the body of Davood to the hospital at Poinachi for which the identification of the petitioner Mr. Thajudeen by the hospital doctors is highly essential for the purpose of investigation. (ii) It is also revealed from the investigation that the deceased Davood was taken to a remote place and had subjected to physical torture by the accused persons including the petitioner Mr. Thajudeen which is evident from the statement of the 10th accused Abdul Kabeer for which custodial interrogation of the petitioner is highly inevitable in this case. (iii) Ever since the commission of the above crime the petitioner and other accused were absconding with a view to escape from the clutches of law. His own conduct immediately after the commission of offence is relevant in the case. The petitioner who has been evading arrest that too for a long period of 5 years cannot claim benefit of pre-arrest bail in the case. (iv) The main motive behind the murder of Davood is that of the allegation levelled against him with regard to the robbing of hawala money to the tune of Rs. 16,23,500/-from the possession of one Ahammed while he was disbursing the same to the beneficiaries on 5.11.2009. Hence the large net work associated with the hawala transactions worked behind the murder of Davood is to be probed in depth for which the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is highly essential to unravel the entire conspiracy worked behind the murder. (v) If the petitioner is released on bail, it will cause very serious dangerous situation to the life and security of his person which may even make the completion of the investigation a very difficult task. (vi) If the petitioner is released on bail, the investigation of the crime in so far as the petitioner is concerned will be virtually thwarted due to various reasons and the arrest of remaining persons will also be impossible. It is also reliably understood that other accused are also being protected and sheltered by the petitioner. (vii) The name of the petitioner was disclosed by eye witnesses who were questioned by Police on the immediate second day of occurrence of the above crime. Hence his active participation and involvement of the commission of the crime even at the very beginning itself is evident otherwise. (vii) The name of the petitioner was disclosed by eye witnesses who were questioned by Police on the immediate second day of occurrence of the above crime. Hence his active participation and involvement of the commission of the crime even at the very beginning itself is evident otherwise. (viii) It is also submitted that the accused persons have brutally assaulted one Ahammed to whom they entrusted the hawala money and from whose possession the same was alleged to have been robbed by Davood. A separate crime was also registered by Police in connection with the above incident viz. Crime No. 17 of 2010 of Kasargod Police Station u/s. 143, 147, 148, 341, 364(A) 323, 324, r/w 149 IPC against the very same accused persons and the same case is also being investigated by Police. The investigating Team reasonably believes that the petitioner is also one among the persons who took part a very active role in attacking Mr. Ahammed along with other accused for which test identification parade in so far as the petitioner is concerned is also necessary in the case." 6. Heard Sri B. Raman Pillai, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri T. Asaf Ali, the Director General of Prosecution-cum-State Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State. 7. The counsel on either sides have reiterated their respective submissions as stated above. 8. It is now too well established that the norms for the exercise of judicial discretion in the matter of grant or refusal of bail plea, cannot be confined to any strait jacket formula and that the golden rule of bail jurisprudence is that judicial discretion has to be exercised with great care taking into account the facts and circumstances of each case. However, it is also well settled to hold that the following parameters enumerated hereinafter would be a matter of great guidance in judicially deciding on the issue of grant or refusal of bail, viz. However, it is also well settled to hold that the following parameters enumerated hereinafter would be a matter of great guidance in judicially deciding on the issue of grant or refusal of bail, viz. (i) The nature of gravity of the offence (ii) Enormity of the charge (iii) The severity of the punishment prescribed (iv) The nature of evidence in support of accusation (v) The probability of accused absconding, if released on bail (vi) The likelihood of the witnesses being tampered with or terrorised (vii) The danger of offence being repeated or continued (viii) The delay likely to be occasioned in trial (ix) The opportunity to the accused to prepare his defence (x) Age, sex, health, back ground, antecedents and character of the accused (xi) Circumstances under which the offence is committed (xii) Period for which the accused remained in custody (xiii) Position and status of the accused with reference to the victim and the witnesses (xiv) The nature and character of the evidence against the accused (xv) Larger interest of the public and State. Of course, the above said factors are only illustrative and cannot be treated as exhaustive and self contained. The words of Lord Russel – "It was not the poorer classes who did not appear, for their circumstances were such as to tie them to the place where they carried on their work. They had not the golden wings with which to fly from justice." (Emphasis supplied) Have been quoted by the Apex Court in the case Guddinkanti vs. Public Prosecutor, (1978) 1 SCC 240 . Therefore, to make a judicial evaluation as to whether the accused pleading for bail has the golden wings with which to fly from justice, is one of the paramount task to be made by the court before deciding on the issue of plea of bail. 9. In Gurucharan Singh vs. State of Punjab, (1978) 1 SCC 118 , the Apex Court observed that:- "We may repeat the two paramount considerations, viz. likelihood of the accused fleeing from justice and his tampering with prosecution evidence relate to ensuring a fair trial of the case in a court of justice. It is essential that due and proper weight should be bestowed on these two factors apart from others. There cannot be an inexorable formula in the matter of granting bail. likelihood of the accused fleeing from justice and his tampering with prosecution evidence relate to ensuring a fair trial of the case in a court of justice. It is essential that due and proper weight should be bestowed on these two factors apart from others. There cannot be an inexorable formula in the matter of granting bail. The facts and circumstances of each case will govern the exercise of judicial discretion in granting or cancelling bail. (Emphasis supplied) In Gurbaksh Sing vs. State of Punjab, (1980) 2 SCC 565 , the Apex Court was considering the decision rendered by the Full Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, which laid down certain principles as to when anticipatory bail should be granted under Section 438 of the Code and reversing the decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, the Apex Court held that the court has to decide the cases coming before it after considering the facts and circumstances without laying down a cast iron rule or adopting strait jacket formula and that the Court must be left free to grant or refuse bail by exercising discretion judicially in the light of facts and situations placed before it. The Apex Court therein observed [See – 1980 (2) SCC 565 , p.580] as follows: "Generalisations on matters which rest on discretion and the attempt to discover formula of universal application when the facts are bound to differ from case to case frustrate the very purpose of conferring discretion. No two case are alike on the facts and therefore, Court have to be allowed a little free play in the joints of the conferment of discretionary power is to be meaningful. There is no risk involved in entrusting a wide discretion to the Court of Session and the High Court in granting anticipatory bail because, firstly, these are higher courts manned by experienced persons, secondly, their orders are not final but are open to appellate or revisional scrutiny and above all because, discretion has always to be exercised by courts judicially and not according to whim, caprice or fancy. On the other hand, there is a risk in foreclosing categories of cases in which anticipatory bail may be allowed because life throws up unforeseen possibilities and offers new challenges. Judicial discretion has to be free enough to be able take these possibilities in its stride and to meet these challenges." 10. On the other hand, there is a risk in foreclosing categories of cases in which anticipatory bail may be allowed because life throws up unforeseen possibilities and offers new challenges. Judicial discretion has to be free enough to be able take these possibilities in its stride and to meet these challenges." 10. In the instant case, the petitioner herein has been arrayed as an accused as early as on 6.1.2010 in the crime, which was initially registered on 30.12.2009. Till date, the petitioner has been absconding from the long arms of the State. The remedy conferred under Section 438 of Cr. P.C. by way of the relief of pre-arrest bail, is discretionary in nature and judicial discretion has to be exercised with great caution and circumspection. The instant case relates to a gruesome murder that has taken place after violent incidents that have taken place between the disputants to sordid and highly illegal networks of hawala money transactions. Much more than long four-and-a-half years have elapsed after the petitioner has been arrayed as accused No.8 in the aforementioned crime. Therefore, this Court is convinced that exercise of discretionary judicial power should not be afforded in favour of such a person, who has been absconding from the long arms of law since past more than four-and-a-half years and that too, after having got himself implicated in a case of gruesome and heinous crime of murder arising out of the sordid and illegal transactions in hawala money. 11. The petitioner has been absconding for the last more than four-and-a-half years and the investigation team is fully correct in apprehending that he may again abscond after securing bail and his presence cannot in any be assured, given the context of the previous conduct in having absconded for a long time. The crime relating to murder is arising out of hawala money disputes and many of the accused will have very powerful connections with hawala gangs, which are operating outside the country and within the country. Even the fact that the petitioner has been absconding, it is only reasonable for this Court to presume that he would have lived safely in the Gulf country for the past more than four-and-a-half years due to his connections with such networks and therefore, this Court is inclined to conclude that the petitioner is most likely to abscond again, if he is granted anticipatory bail. On these grounds alone, this Court is convinced that the application for anticipatory bail is to be refused. 12. The investigating officer has stated various grounds, which are quoted above to justify their opposition for grant of anticipatory bail. The identification of the petitioner by the hospital doctor is highly essential for the purpose of the investigation, as the investigation team has reasons to believe that he is one among the persons, who had taken the body of Dawood to the hospital in question. The investigation officer cannot be faulted for taking the stand that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is highly inevitable in this case due to the other reasons stated in the aforementioned statement. The investigation officer cannot be faulted for taking the stand that the large net work associated with the hawala transactions worked behind the murder of Dawood is to be probed in depth for which the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is highly essential to unravel the entire conspiracy that worked behind the murder. Further, the investigating officer has reasons to believe that if the petitioner is released on bail, it will cause very serious dangerous situation to his life and security, which may even make the completion of the investigation a very difficult task. Further, the investigating officer has stated that if the petitioner is released on bail, the investigation will be thwarted due to various reasons and that the arrest of the remaining absconding accused persons will also be impossible and that it is reliably understood that the other absconding accused are also being protected and sheltered by the petitioner. Though the petitioner has disputed about the correctness of the involvement of the number of accused persons herein in relation to another Crime No. 17 of 2010 of Kasargode Police Station, the petitioner does not dispute that at least some of the accused persons herein are also accused therein. The investigating officer has reasons to believe that the petitioner is also one among the persons, who took a very active role in attacking the above said Ahammed along with other accused, for which, a test identification parade is in so far as the petitioner concerned is also highly necessary and this Court cannot fault with the investigating officer for taking their stand that those are aspects fully within the domain of the investigation. Therefore, this Court cannot brush aside the grounds urged by the prosecution for opposing the grounds of anticipatory bail in this case, especially given the gruesome nature of the murder and the fact that the murder has taken place in the background of the sordid game of hawala money transaction. 13. It is clearly stated by the investigating officer in the above said statement that the name of the petitioner was disclosed by eye witnesses, who were questioned by the police on the immediate second day of the occurrence of the above crime and that his active participation and involvement of the commission of the crime even at the very beginning itself is evident otherwise. It is indisputable that the investigation agency had prepared the necessary report on 5.1.2010 and had submitted the same before the court below concerned on 6.1.2010 for arraying the petitioner as accused No. 8 in the aforementioned crime initially registered on 30.10.2009. At this state, this Court cannot and should not now enter into the area of adjudging the tenability of the reasons stated for the subsequent inclusion of the petitioner as an accused in the crime. There could be reasons more than one as to why the petitioner was not initially included as an accused in the crime registered on 30.10.2009 and it would be really hazardous for the court considering the plea of pre-arrest bail to enter into that area of controversy sought to be projected by the petitioner herein. This Court cannot and should not enter into any judicial evaluation of the aspects relating to the subsequent inclusion of the petitioner in the accused array of the crime. As stated earlier, in a gruesome crime of murder that was taken place in the background of the sordid and illegal hawala money transactions, there could be many complex scenarios and it would be fully unwise and imprudent for the court to enter into that minefield of adjudication, for those aspects cannot be examined at this stage of mere consideration of pre-arrest bail. The plea of the petitioner regarding the delayed inclusion of his name in the accused array of the crime cannot be countenanced for reasons more than one, due to other aspects stated herein-below. 14. The plea of the petitioner regarding the delayed inclusion of his name in the accused array of the crime cannot be countenanced for reasons more than one, due to other aspects stated herein-below. 14. The Apex Court in the case Muraleedharan vs. State of Kerala, AIR 2001 SC 1699 , has conclusively held that grant of pre-arrest bail to an accused merely on the ground that investigation agency could not be able to collect any material to connect the appellant with the crime, except the confessional statement of the co-accused, is judicially condemnable and that it would amount to misuse of discretion conferred under Section 438 of the Cr. P.C. The Apex Court in the above said Muraleedhran's case held in para 7 thereof as follows: "7. The above provision is in pari materia with Section 37 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act. This Court has held, time and again, that no person who is involved in an offence under that Act shall be released on bail in contravention of the conditions laid down in the said Section. (Vide – Union of India vs. Ram Samujh, (1999) 9 SCC 429 . If the position is thus in regard to an accused even after arrest, it is incomprehensible how the position would be less when he approaches the Court for pre-arrest bail knowing that he would also be implicated as an accused. Custodial interrogation of such accused is indispensably necessary for the investigating agency to unearth all the links involved in the criminal conspiracies committed by the persons which ultimately led to the capital tragedy. We express our reprobation at the supercilious manner in which the Sessions Judge decided to think that no material could be collected by the investigating agency to connect the petitioner with the crime except the confessional statement of the co-accused. Such a wayward thinking emanating from a Sessions Judge deserves judicial condemnation. No Court can afford to presume that the investigating agency would fail to trace out more materials to prove the accusation against an accused. We are at a loss to understand what would have prompted the Sessions Judge to conclude, at this early stage, that the investigating agency would not be able to collect any material to connect the appellant with the crime. We are at a loss to understand what would have prompted the Sessions Judge to conclude, at this early stage, that the investigating agency would not be able to collect any material to connect the appellant with the crime. The order of the Sessions Judge, blessing the appellant with a pre-arrest bail order, would have remained as a bugbear of how the discretion conferred on Sessions Judges under Section 438 of the Cr. P.C. would have been misused. It is heartening that the High Court of Kerala did not allow such an order to remain in force for long. By the impugned order passed by the learned single Judge of High Court an unwholesome benefit wangled by the appellant was rightly reversed." 15. Sri T. Asaf Ali, the learned State Prosecutor, who is also the Director General of Prosecutions, submitted that with all responsibility, he would strongly urge that if the plea of pre-arrest bail is allowed on accepting the petitioner's contention based on delayed inclusion of his name as accused in the crime, then it would amount to awarding a glorious acquittal to the petitioner, even at this investigation pendency stage. He has also placed reliance on the aforementioned Muraleedharan's case AIR 2001 SC 1699 , para 7) to fortify the above said submission. The learned State Prosecutor has further relied on the decision of the Apex Court in the case Kiran Devi vs. State of Rajasthan and another, 1988 SCC (Cri) 106, wherein the Supreme Court held that anticipatory bail should not have been granted in the murder case when investigation was still incomplete and the proper course to adopt was to leave it to the trial court to do the needful, if and when the person concerned was arrested in the light of the record available at that point of time. Accordingly, the Apex Court in Kiran Devi's case has set aside the impugned order therein passed by the High Court, etc. The reliance placed by the learned State Prosecutor on that decision of the Apex Court, is tenable in the facts and circumstances of this case. 16. Therefore, on a careful evaluation of the matter, this Court should take into consideration the fact that the accused, who has been absconding from the long arm of law for quite a long time, may have the means to manage to keep himself away from the justicing system. 17. 16. Therefore, on a careful evaluation of the matter, this Court should take into consideration the fact that the accused, who has been absconding from the long arm of law for quite a long time, may have the means to manage to keep himself away from the justicing system. 17. It is also apposite to note the following observations in the aforementioned Gurubaksh Singh vs. State of Haryana and Punjab, (1980) 2 SCC 565 :- "It cannot be laid down as an inexorable rule that anticipatory bail cannot be granted unless the proposed accusation appears to be actuated by mala fides and equally, that anticipatory bail must be granted if there is no fear that the applicant will abscond. There are several other considerations, too numerous to enumerate, the combined effect of which must weigh with the court while granting or rejecting anticipatory bail. The nature and seriousness of the proposed charges, the context of the events likely to lead to the making of the charges, a reasonable possibility of the applicant's presence not being secured at the trial, a reasonable apprehension that witnesses will be tampered with and "the larger interests of the public or the State" are some of the considerations which the court has to keep in mind while deciding an application for anticipatory bail." Therefore, this Court is constrained to hold that the larger interests of the public and the State require refusal of the discretionary relief of anticipatory bail to this accused, taking into account the heinous and gruesome nature of the murder that has taken place in the background of warring groups of hawala money transactions and the crucial aspect that the accused herein has shown that he has the golden wings to fly from justice and the other relevant facts and circumstances narrated herein above. 18. Accordingly, this Court is constrained to hold that this is not a fit case for exercise of judicial discretion for granting the extraordinary relief of pre-arrest bail. In this view of the matter, the application stands dismissed.