Kerala HC denies anticipatory bail to SPP CP Udayabhanu in conspiracy case

The Kerala High Court has rejected an application for anticipatory bail made by Special Public Prosecutor (SPP) CP Udayabhanu in a case involving kidnapping and conspiracy resulting in the murder of a real estate player..The order was passed today by Justice A Hariprasad. Senior Advocates B Raman Pillai and Vijaya Bhanu represented Udhyabhanu. Senior Advocate S Sreekumar argued on behalf of the intervenor/de-facto complainant, who is the son of the deceased. The Public Prosecutor made submissions on behalf of the state..The complainant has alleged that Udayabhanu acted into tandem with six other accused in conspiring to exhort the deceased into signing papers releasing property in their favour. In pursuing this nefarious plan, the deceased Rajeev was kidnapped and tortured in an abandoned building. However, he succumbed to injuries sustained in the course of physical torture before the papers were signed..Refuting these allegations, Udayabhanu contended that the he had no connection with instant matter and that he was implicated to wreak vengeance nurtured by certain persons..The Court was of the view that given the facts of the case, a deeper probe was required to discern the truth of the matter. There was no exceptional circumstance in the instant case which warranted the intervention of the Court in granting anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the CrPC. Rather, the judge opined that it was a case where custodial interrogation was highly essential..Therefore, it was held,.“Having regard to the facts and circumstances, I find that the petitioner is not entitled to get a pre-arrest bail order in this case as his presence in custody for questioning is highly essential. ‘Be you ever so high, the law is always above you’ is an unquestionable proposition.”.The judge, however, specifically emphasized that the investigating officer has no right to subject the accused to any third degree method. The Court has also vacated interim orders passed earlier in the case requiring the police to place the case diary and other relevant details before the Court before proceeding with the investigation..Facts as alleged .It has been contended by the complainant that Rajeev and Udayabhanu previously shared a close relationship. Udayabhanu had represented the deceased in legal battles against another accused – arraigned as accused 5 in the instant matter – who had harboured enmity against the deceased for a long time. As their closeness developed beyond a mere lawyer-client relationship, Rajeev had brokered three property deals for Udayabhanu on his request..However, the relationship apparently soured when Udayabhanu began to coerce Rajeev into paying part of the consideration for a certain property. Eventually, the complainant alleges, Udayabhanu even resorted to harass Rajeev and his family, even going so far as to abuse his position as a Special Public Prosecutor to direct police officials to take part in such intimidation tactics..The prosecution has pointed out that several phone calls were made between the Accused 5 and Udayabhanu on the day of the crime, revealing that the two were complicit in the conspiracy that culminated in the murder of Rajeev..Udayabhanu admitted to having legally represented the deceased previously, as well as having been part of property transactions through the deceased, for which purpose he had also taken a loan of Rs 11.5 lakhs from the deceased. However, contrary to the prosecution’s case, Udayabhanu contends that he broke off ties after discovering that the deceased had cheated him in these transactions..It was also pointed out that Udayabhanu informed the police authorities as soon as he was intimated over phone of the murder of Rajeev. He contended that he would not have informed the police had he been connected to the crime in any way..Read Order below..Click here to download the Bar & Bench Android App