Kerala High Court
Muhammed Nisar vs State Of Kerala on 30 November, 2020
Author: Ashok Menon
Bench: Ashok Menon
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK MENON
MONDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2020 / 9TH AGRAHAYANA, 1942
Bail Appl.No.7110 OF 2020
CRIME NO.263/2020 OF Vengara Police Station , Malappuram
PETITIONER/S:
1 MUHAMMED NISAR,
AGED 32 YEARS, SON OF MOIDEEN,
KAMBRAN HOUSE, VALAKKUDA, KANNAMANGALAM WEST,
A.R.NAGAR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT - 676305.
2 SADIQALI,
AGED 30 YEARS, SON OF YOUSAF,
ERIYADAN HOUSE, MANNILPILAKKAL, KOORIYAD POST,
KANNAMANGALAM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT - 676306.
3 NISAR M.,
AGED 40 YEARS, SON OF MOOSA,
MANDEPURATH HOUSE, VENNIYUR,THIRURANGADI,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT - 676508.
4 ABDUL JALEEL K.,
AGED 40 YEARS, SON OF ALASANKUTTY,
KAVUNGAL, THAZHECHINA, THIRURANGADI,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT - 676306.
BY ADV. SRI.K.P.SUDHEER
Bail Appl.No.7110 OF 2020
2
RESPONDENT/S:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
ERNAKULAM - 682031.
2 STATION HOUSE OFFICER,
VENGARA POLICE STATION,
VENGARA - 676304.
3* UBAID P.K.,
AGED 35 YEARS, S/O MOHAMMED KUTTY HAJI,
PATTARKADAVAN HOUSE, KANNAMANGALAM PO,
VENGARA, TIRURANGADI TALUK MALAPPURAM DISTRICT,
PIN-676 304.
*IS IMPLEADED AS ADDL R3 AS PER ORDER DATED
16/11/2020 IN CRL MA 1/2020
R1-R2 BY SRI.AJITH MURALI, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
R3 BY ADV. T.V.GEORGE
R3 BY ADV. SRI.JIMMY GEORGE (THADATHIL)
OTHER PRESENT:
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
30.11.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Bail Appl.No.7110 OF 2020
3
O R D E R
Dated this the 30th day of November 2020 This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of Cr.P.C.
2. The applicants are accused 1 to 4 in Crime No.263/2020 of Vengara Police Station for having allegedly committed the offences punishable under Sections 324 and 308 of the I.P.C. Initially an offence under the Arms Act was incorporated, but later on it is seen removed.
3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 04.08.2020 at about 8.30 PM at Valakkuda in Kannamangalam Amsom, the de facto complainant allegedly trespassed into the office of the 1st applicant, armed with a pistol and the allegation is that the applicants in furtherance of the common intention, beat him up, causing lacerated wounds all over the body and in Bail Appl.No.7110 OF 2020 4 particular over the scalp, which could have proved fatal and thus attempted to commit culpable homicide in furtherance of the common intention.
4. In connection with the incident, two crimes were registered. In Crime No.263/2020, the applicants are accused. Crime No.262/2020 is registered against the de facto complainant herein and others for having allegedly committed the offences punishable under Sections 452, 324 and 506 read with Section 34 of the I.P.C. and under Sections 3 and 25(1B)&(a) of the Arms Act for being in possession of a pistol.
5. The applicants state that they are innocent and the allegations are not true and it is the de facto complainant and his friends, who have trespassed into the property of the 1st applicant and intimidated them pointing a pistol at them. A scuffle ensued in which the de facto complainant and the applicants were injured. It is also stated that the de facto complainant has several crimes registered against him, including for offences under the POCSO Act. The Bail Appl.No.7110 OF 2020 5 applicants do not have any criminal antecedents and they seek anticipatory bail.
6. The de facto complainant has also appeared and represented through a Counsel of his choice. The learned Counsel appearing for the applicants and the de facto complainant as also the learned Public Prosecutor were heard.
7. The only offence now existing against the applicants are under Sections 324 and 308 of the I.P.C. The offence under the Arms Act has been deleted. The applicants do not have any criminal antecedents. It is seen from the F.I.R. in Crime No.262/2020, which indicates it was the de facto complainant who has trespassed into the property of the 1st applicant. An offence under Section 452 of the I.P.C. has been registered against him. He was also holding a pistol in his hand to intimidate the applicants. There were others, who had accompanied him in the alleged trespass. It is in the scuffle which ensued that two crimes were registered. The Counsel Bail Appl.No.7110 OF 2020 6 for the de facto complainant submits that he had sustained several injuries on the scalp and all over the body. He has also produced photographs as also the wound certificate pertaining to his treatment in Aster MIMS. The discharge summary produced by him indicated that he had sustained a mild head injury and lacerated wound over the scalp and there were also contusions over the back and front of the chest, left gluteal region, left knee and anterior abdominal wall. The injuries sustained by the applicants would only invite an offence under Sections 324 of the I.P.C. Section 308 of the I.P.C. is also alleged to be attracted for the reason that the de facto complainant had sustained an injury on his scalp, which had to be sutured. The applicants do not have any criminal antecedents. Under the circumstances, I find no reason for custodial interrogation of the applicants, particularly in view of the fact that the de facto complainant is also an offender, who had intimidated the applicants with a pistol, committing an offence under the Arms Act. Bail Appl.No.7110 OF 2020 7 Therefore, the applicants are entitled to pre-arrest bail.
In the result, the bail application is allowed and the applicants are directed to surrender before the investigating officer within two weeks. In the event of their being arrested, after interrogation, they shall be released on bail on the execution of a bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) each, with two solvent sureties for the like amount each, to the satisfaction of the investigating officer, and on the following conditions:
i) They shall appear before the investigating officer as and when called and shall cooperate with the investigation;
ii) They shall not attempt to influence or intimidate the witnesses; and
iii) They shall not get involved in similar offences during the currency of the bail.
Bail Appl.No.7110 OF 2020 8 In case of breach of any of the bail conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to apply for cancellation of the bail before the jurisdictional Court.
Sd/-
ASHOK MENON
dkr JUDGE